The URL can be used to link to this page

1990 02 26CHANHASSEN CITY ~IL REGtKAR M~TI~ FEBRL~RY 26, 1990 Mayor Ch~,iel called the m~eting to order at 7:3~ p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL M~BERS PRESE: Mayor Ch~del, .councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman; Councilwoman Dimler and councilman Johnson STAFF PRES~: Don Ashworth, Paul Krauss, Gary ~arren, Jim Chaffee, Elliott Knetsch and Roger Knutson, City. Attorneys Mayor C~v, iel wished Councilw~van Dim]er a happy, birthday. o. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: councilman Johnson moved, councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the agenda with the following s~ndm~nts: Counci~ Workman ~nted to m~ve ite~, 6(a) to 1.3 under Unfinished Business and to discuss Metro Waste Control Advisory Omv~,ission and a resolution proposal to the legislature; Mayor Ch~iel wanted to discuss the drug awareness progra% and National Earth Day. All voted in favor of the agenda as s~nded and the m~tion carried. CONSENT AGf2~DA: councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pur~mnt to the City Manager's rec~v~endations: e. Accept Proposal for Official Mapping of TH 1~1 Bet~=en Entrance and Proposed TH 212. f. Approve Agrea~nt for Deposit of Securities in Lieu of Retainage, Northdale Constr,.~tion. g. Review Specifications for Public Works Eguip~.~nt, Authorize Advertising Bids. h. Approve Plans and Specifications for Public Works Auxiliary Storage ~lilding, Phase II, Authorize Advertising for Bids. Resolution ~90-22: Approve Contract ~v~=nd~nt No. 1, North Side Parking Lot Improvement Project. k. Approval of Accounts. 1. City Council Minutes dated February. 12, 1990 Planning (km~,ission Minutes dated February. 7, 1990 Park and Recreation (kxa~issi~ Minutes dated February. 13, 199~ Public Safety ~ission Minutes dated February 8, 199~ m. Zoning Ordinance ~%~ndment Regarding Recreational Beachlots, Final Reading. n. Extension to Preli~nary Plat Deadline for Laurent and Peterson All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - Febr~mry 26, 1990 RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Ck~,iel picked a na~ for the recycling prize of CONSENT AGENDA: (A) ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDM~ DEALING WITH LOT FRONTAGE AND AOCESS BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, FINAL READING AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES. CouncilFan Boyt: 5his is the item about private driveways and there's a couple things I'd like us to consider. It's quite possible that sc~,ebody will l~t in a private driveway to access 4 houses, that at s~'~ point w~'ll want to Fake a public street. I'd like to see us under Section (o)(1). 0n the first page of the ordinance. It talks about if ~.me of the private driveway is to be allowed, they shall be subject to the following standards and then w~ go through a 7 ton road. 20 feet wide. Maximum 10% grade. I'd like to see us add that the City would have an easement of standard city proportions for a roadway easement. They build their private driveway but if at so~ point in the future we needed that land, we wouldn't have to buy it. The City would already have the ability to build a road there. CouncilFan Work,an: You're saying change nothing? Add. Council~an Boyt: Add that the City would acq%%ire a standard road width easement. CouncilFan Work,mn: Wouldn't that kind of defeat, I F~an basically it wouldn't be that kind of roc~ there would there on a flag? Paul Krauss: Council~n WorkFmn, I ~ess I would agree with your opinion on that. There is no intent to use this type of option unless we've already determined that a ~blic road won't be needed in the ~ture. If ~ think that a public road would be needed in the future, we wouldn't go the private drive route. In addition, when we're looking at 50 or 60 foot wide rights-of-ways, that's oftentia~s difficult if not L~{x)ssible to develop in these situations and that's one of the reasons why w~ might look at a private drive. Council~n Boyt: Now Tc~, this isn't a flag lot. We're talking here strictly about private drives. We've had 2 of them in the last 3 years where people have co~e in and said I'm developing this piece of property and I'm just going to put a house back in there and I want a private drive. I j~mt don't think it's good planning. We haven't set up any special conditions as w~ have with flag lots and so I think we're really inviting people to co~ in and develop their land with private driveways and that that could prove to be a probl~, for us with future planning. Paul Krauss: Again, I would go back to the standards that we did propose [~nder Section (o) where the first one says that the prevailing develol~ent pattern Fakes it infeasible or inappropriate to constr~t a public street. If we thought that it was feasible or appropriate to construct a public street, that is the route we would propose that you go. We wouldn't ~me this option. Councilman Boyt: If you would change prevailing developing pattern to so~ething that had to do with the geography, what I think you're saying in develol~nt pattern is if the guy next to F~ has got a private drive, then I ought to be able to have a private drive. You haven't got, as with flag lots, ve got all City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 kinds of things in there about the geographic requir~_nts that make it necessary, to have a flag lot. Here we don't have any of that. Paul KraLms: That language could be charged. It wasn't meant to infer that if vo~.%r neighbor has one, that you w~uld be entitled to one but rather that because ~f the location of existing ~ and property, lines, it was i~ossible to put in a [~.~lic street. We could certainly add language to the topography. ~hat appears elsewhere in the ordinance anyway. Mayor Ch~,iel: That would probably be accep+_able. Councilman Boyt: Sure. As long as w~'re putting in something that says this is truly a special situation. I'd like to see in ite~ (2) on the second page where it says private clriveways must be maintained in good condition and plowed as ~ed. I think they should be subject to the same street cleaning regulations that a city. street would have. In other words, within 24 hours of a snow storm they should be cleared. Mayor Ch~,iel: I think if we just struck the as ~ed and left it private driveways mL~t be maintained in good condition and plcmmd. Councilman Boyt: Okay. So long as we've got it in the record that our intent is that they. match city. standards. So those were the changes. I would move approval of itt,, l(a) with the t~D changes being that we include language to specify, that it has to be a unique geographic situation and that we amend ite~ (2), Section 1. There's so many it~ 2's on there. ~he one on page 2. Mayor C~,iel: Page 2, it~ 2. Councilman Boyt: So at the e~d of the first sentence would stop at plowed. Private driveways must be maintained in good condition and plowed. Then it would continue with the rest of that paragraph. Now I do have another question here seeing that. Covenants, I think in our experience are hardly worth the paper they're written on. What kind of emforc~emt actions can the City take if they choose not to plow their street because that is a public safety, hazard? How? They can't get the fire truck back there. Councilman Johnson: If there's 4 houses on it. Councilman Boyt: So we ~ sc~e stronger language. ~e City can't enforce covenants. Paul Krauss: That's true. Possibly, I'd leave it up to the City Attorney but I've -~_-~n~ ordinances drafted whereby, the City. would have the right to request that the plowing and maintenance be done and if it's not done, to order it done and assess the properties for the work. Councilman Work~an: Under what situation would sc~.~body not plow their road so they. couldn't get in with their regular co~act car that a fire engine couldn't? Councilman Boyt: I think ~u're looking at road maintenance issues. You're looking at cost issues. You're looking at things that are fairly easy to put off and you ~ay even ~nt to. If you don't ~nt any traffic down your road, you ~ay choose to let your road deteriorate to the point where you can star~ it but City Council Meeting ' Febr~mry 26~ 1990 nobody else will be t~,pted to drive down there. I would like to think this would never, ~'d never need to enforce this. I'm just saying now's a chance to put into our language sc~thing that indicates that the road has to be in good condition and it has to be plowed within 24 ho~s. It's the sa~ thing we require of ourselves. Mayor Ch%iel: Paul? Sc~ additional language I think probably could be worked out between you and our attorney to cc~e up with sc~thing and I guess in a may that does have s(~ F~at to it. ~ only reason I say that is that the accessibility of going in and out and if no one does create a problem, and it is private property but still we have to have the accessibility of e~rgency vehicles in that area could cause a probl~,. CouncilFmn Work,mn: I'm just saying, if I live on that neck lot FLy Chevette, I don't plow and FLy Chevette can't get thro[E3h, I'm not going to get through but the fire engine probably still could get thro~E~h. I just can't i~mgine a sit[~atlon where I wouldn't plow it to where I couldn't or my 3 other neighbors couldn't get through and that would create a ~blic safety hazard. I j~mt don't know how much we want to put on. I don't know how enforceable it's going to be anyway but. CouncilFmn Johnson: What if you don't live there and you're responsible for plowing? If you're the developer and you've got the 4 lots up there and you've sold 3 of them k~.~t 1 of the~, hasn't been sold. You're still responsible for plowing it. You live off in Pl~umouth or sc~eplace. CounciL?an Work,mn: I'd say that's b,~er beware. Gary. Warren: I think it's appropriate for the City Attorney to draft up so~e language that would address the fact that perhaps if the City found it necessary, either frc~, a snow access standpoint or a maintenance access or whatever where we had to exercise our forces to acc(~lish this on an interim basis, ~ergency. basis or whatever, that the City would have the right to assess the property owners for the actions. Si~Lilarily I would be interested as to whether there shouldn't be so~e condition in there and Fmybe it addresses Council~an Boyt's concern that if for whatever reason a city street ca~ to be built in this area, F~ybe a hard thing to envision but if it could be, that the owners would not have any right to credits or anything else by the fact that they already have a private drive. That they would have to encounter assessments for the i~rov~nts as they would without it. CouncilFmn Johnson: It'd be like Teton Lane. Private drive that's almost a public street. Gary Warren: It's obviously the reason why. we don't like to see too many private drives beca~me we have to rely on covenants and the homeo~rs associations which depending on the h~owners can be either good or bad. Mayor Ch~,iel: That's probably a good recommendation. Councilm~n Johnson: Tne more we see added to this, the Fore it sounds like this should be tabled to where we see the specific language is written up versus saying please write up a language and this is a second reading. It's final without us ever even seeing what's written up. City. Council Meeting - February 261 1990 Councilman Boyt m~ved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the final reading of Zoning Ordinance ~m~_ndment dealing with lot frontage and access by private driveway and the summary ordinance for publication purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Bill Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail: Honorable Mayor and the City Council m~bers. On February. 6, 199~ there was a public information m~__ting for the residents of Frontier Trail who ~uld be affected by. the proposed reconstruction of the road. The preliminary, plans which were shown to us that evening included a sidewalk on the north side of the street. Several people at the meeting objected to the sidewalk so I decided to make a survey, which I'm presenting to you tonight in the form of a petition showing an overwhelming majority against any. sidewalk on any. side of the street. On'the north side there are 26 hc~es. 2 are vacant. Of the remaining 24 h~, 4 hc~ are for the sidewalk and 20 are against it. These 20 hcmes are represented by. 38 signatures. On the south side there are 22 ho~s. 4 of tbs~ axe for a sidewalk and 18 hc~s are against it. These 18 hc~es are represented by 34 signatures. In terms of total percentages for the north and south sides ccmbined, there are 17% for and 83% against any. sidewalk. Many of the people are angry, that a sidewalk is even being considered. Several told me they specifically moved to Chanhassen to get away fr~, sidewalks. Many are disturbed about the landscaping which w~uld be altered and they don't want it moved or altered. Some of the trees and shrubs are so large that they. cannot be moved. Nobody. wants to be responsible for keeping their sidewalk clean of ice and snow or dog feces to say nothing of the legal liability in case of accidents on their properties. Many. cc~mv~nts were made about the relatively ~all nt~ber of people who ~uld use a sidewalk which starts nowhere and ends nowhere. Sc~e residents are upset about people being able to look into their living roc~.~ because their lxx~es are very close to the street. Sc~e of them are even lower than the street and a sidewalk w~uld bring the walkers 10 feet closer to their lx~.~s. I also received ntm~rous ccmv~nts concerning the fact that people w~uld rather wait with the reconstruction of the road Lmtil public funds ~ available as suggested by. me last year. Several people brought up the subject of assesm~ent if the project should proceed. I'll .take the opportunity to remind you of the petition presented to ~u on Dec~%ber 18th which ~ a large majority, of the affected residents favoring the front footage method of asses~nt. We understand that the construction plans will cc~e before you for approval in the very. near future. We respectfully request that you listen to the overwhelming majority of the residents as indicated by. this petition and give serious consideration to the elim~tnation of the sidewalk entirely frem the project. Thank ~u. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to make a visitox presentation at this time? CITY CGDE ~ LIMITING THE SALE GF TGRA(XX) FRf~ BEHIND THE COUNTER G~]LY. Mayor Ch~,iel: We have had several presentations done by. store owners within the city. Hopefully if you have scmethtng new to add, we'll be more than happy, to listen to that. We do have the Council Minutes frcm that particular time so at City Oouncil Meeting ' February 26~ 1990 this time I will open the m~eting and those wishing to Fake a presentation, step forward to the microphone. Please state your name- and your address and who you may or ~ay not be representing. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Before they do that, I'd like to mention that due to c~ite a few different factors that are in our staff report and other things, that there's a very large likelihood that this will be tabled tonight. Mayor C~m;iel: That' s very likely, yes. Councilman Johnson: And I think that in that light I think it'd be fair for the people to know that this will cc~e up again. As far as I know, it probably will be tabled but we also would like to, you took the effort to cc~,e here. If you'd like to say s(x~ething, we are going to listen to. you tonight too. I haven't decided completely whether I want to say anything about the actual issue tonight or not or wait until the next meeting. Mayor Ch~,iel: If we do table this, this will probably be tabled until March 12th. Is there anyone who wishes to. Jim Larkin: Mr. Mayor if I can speak. My. name is Jim, Larkin and I'm with the fi~m of Larkin, Hoffman, Daley and Lindgren and I'm here on behalf of my client the Minnesota Grocer's Association ~hich a nt~nber of their m~v~ers have come here tonight to address the probl~, that is before the,. I'd like to say at the outset that it is the intent and desire of my client to work with the City on this Fatter because it is a serious Fatter but they. are very concerned that they beco~..e a scapegoat for what may be well intention in m~)tives but through an ordinance which im~oses an undue burden upon business in this city. With m~ tonight is the President of the Minnesota Grocer's Association, Mr. Joe Hoyland who is a former high school teacher and a high school coach and is quite conversant with the group of people towards whom I understand this ordinance is directed. My. ~%derstanding of the purpose of the ordinance is that it is to prevent minors from, stealing cigarettes. That is the declared purpose and the issues to which Mr. Hoyland and those who have co~e to be with him,, and I would u~ge th~, to be brief and I would urge the Council to listen to them tonight because they have c~e and in scme cases may not be able to co~e back on the 12th. The first issue that they would like to address is is there in fact a problem, with theft my minors in the City of (]~anhassen frc~, merchants. Secondly, what would be the cost of the proposed requir~,ents. Thirdly, whether the requir~nt is appropriate to the ass~ed problem,. Again, Mr. Mayor I would like to introduce Mr. Hoyland and let him, at least discuss with you what he has to present. ~nank you. Joe ~oyland: Mr. Mayor, m~mv~ers of the City Council. It's a pleasure to be able to co~e before you and perhaps discuss sc~ of our concerns about your proposed ordinance. As Mr. Larkin indicated, I have been a high school teacher, coach. Also directed plays and things of that nature so I've seen the high school scene fro~, a variety of different roles and positions. Sc~ of the things that really concern me about your ordinance is that one thing is that you' re really going after store merchants within the city of Chanhassen and you're really not going after the kids and placing sc~e responsibility on the kids. One thing that we always placed on our student athletes and st[~tent perfo~rs was the fact that there are certain rules and regulations that you must follow if you're going to participate in varioL~ activities. Let's take City Co, mcil Meeting - February 26~ 1990 football for exa~ole. I was a high school football coach. We said that if you s~%oke or drink, you're off the team. We placed clear and very d~onstrable penalties for students who actually violated s~me of the rules. There were m~ny others b~lt certainly the ~)st important one that's g~ to this is if a stL~tent was caught in the possession of tobacco products or s%oking, actually s~kin~, they. had sc~e real choices that they could make. Personal choices. If they chose to do that, here's what's going to happen, thfortunately with your proposed ordinance, what you're doing is you're placing a severe burden on our retailers. The convenience store o~erators in this city and to my knowledge you're really doing nothing to address the proble% or to address the whole issue of adolescence and s~)king. I want to clarify, that the Minnesota Grocer's Association and retailers in this state who sell tobacco products are sworn by. the laws of the State of Minnesota ~hich say that they must not sell to re{nors. We've instructed our retail mev~ers, both supermarket and convenience stores to abide by. the law and they've indicated to us that that is their intention and they have gone about displaying in their stores, particularly at the checkouts signs which say that if you're a ~.dnor, don't expect to be sold tobacco products. I know that s~me of these signs, many of these signs are here in Chanhassen. Now what they've done and then ~hat the legislature did this past spring is they passed a law which placed a gross m~[sdeveanor on clerks who sell tobacco products. Now what they did is they sent a clear message that if ~u' re caught selling, you're going to receive a higher penalty. In fact it's a higher penalty than selling alcohol to a minor. But I guess the important thing is that the message has bccn sent. Unfortunately, the action that you are proposing to take in the city of Chanhassen is going to severely restrict a retailer's right to merchandise their store amd frankly that's a pure violation of the freedcm to be able to do what they feel is their God given right as a retailer. Unfortunately, as I address the whole issue of minors, I think one thing that you as a City Council should be doing is to be placing restrictions on children and children particularly who choose to purchase or to steal cigarettes. Frankly the greater issue is dealing with kids who may verbalize and say that they are stealing. That is a far greater...going to cost and it's going to cost the cons~ers of Chanhassen. Unfortunately what ~u're going to do is you're going to, if in fact ~u do pass this ordinance, you're going to place they, in a competitive disadvantage because frankly I know kids and you know kids and if they're going to get tobacco products, they're going to go where they. can get they,. If they have to go to ~den Prairie. If they have to go to Minnetonka or Wayzata, they'll go. They are m~bile people. They're also very savy people and frankly anything that you do in Chanhassen, being you're close to ~any other com~,~ities is going to have little effect frankly on the ability, if in fact they. are stealing cigarettes, it's going to have little ira, pact on that. The whole issue of store design ~s to, particularly in a convenience store type setting, service versus self service. One of the things that a convenience store does ~11 is provide convenient wa.rs in which their customers can get in and out quick. Another thing is if you tie up the front end of a convenient store, frankly you cause a great deal of other constraints. Sc~e of the other retailers this evening will talk about that. There's a sit, ration of drive offs. If the clerk is particularly being tied down by having to deal with a lot of different front end types of activities, there's a greater potential for people to drive off from their gas stations. That's just one of many things that kind of trickles down as an affect of having to be bother~ in a sense, if they so choose, to have to wait on their customers and it certainly ties do~n and adds to the time that's involved in the whole transaction. I'd like to address one other quick thing and that's the issue of the ~~rkets. City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 I'm aware that there are no supermarkets in Chanhassen at this ti~e but I a~ aware that a supermarket is co~,ing to this cc~Lunity. What you're going to do, if you bring this one step further is that you are going to cause a supermarket operator to develop a central cust(x~er service type area and essentially what that means for the customer is that they have to shop twice within a given store. They have to F. mke their purchase for the regular grocery it~ and then they have to go to a separate counter and ~ke a separate purchase. I don' t know if you have studied supermarket flow, traffic flows and shopping patterns but I think you're going to create a terrible constraint and as I mentioned before, if c~sto~ers are offended by this type of thing, they can easily go to other co~.Lunities. Frankly for any kind of c~,unity to address this kind of an issue this way creates terrible constraints and I think it has a real negative affect on the cons~,ers in your co~,unity. I' 11 finish by saying that I think there's a real opportunity for you as city council ~nbers to work with retailers. Frankly, we look at this whole issue and we're surprised that you're approaching it in this Fmnner. Frankly we're su~prised because we haven't seen that there's a shoplifting probl~, of tobacco products by minors. Frankly we haven't seen that there's a significant proble~.of shoplifting of tobacco products in the city of Chanhassen. Conse~.~ntly, we have what you're proporting as a problem,, you have not shown us factual data. You haven't shown any kind of documented evidence that there is a proble~. In fact it's a solution looking for a p~obl~. ~nat might sound h~erous but in fact that is really the situation. Our industry is as interested in p~ohibiting minors frc~ buying and using tobacco products as you are. I think we have a tremendous opportunity to try to work together. Tobacco products, whether we like it or not, are legal substances which can be purchased in the United States, including Chanhassen and I think we tried an experi~nt back in the 30's, 20's and 30's with prohibiting alcohol and we found that that didn't work. The real secret to this whole solution to creating s~oking sensation is to teach people of the negative affects of tobacco [%se and if that's your goal, then I would [%rge that you work with us. Work with the State Health Department. In fact I serve on Cc~issioner Ashton's Health Prc~otion Task Force. Taere are a lot of other different ways that we can work to send the ~ssage that tobacco use is harmful to your health, particularly for minors. I think we stand ready to work with any of you at any t~ to address the specific concerns that you ~y have here in Chanhassen. With that in mind, there are a n~nber of retailers that have expressed interest to Fa that they'd like to have an opport~ity to say a few words and if I could be so bold as to call on the~ and they will Fmke a few c~nts on their part. I want to point out that so~ of these people are people that are act,~lly ~naging and working in Chanhassen and s(~ne of these people are corporate people who are fr~, the cc~panies and can tell you a little bit about how thei~ co~Dany operates. I think that might lend so~ perspective to actually how they're approaching the sale of tobacco products to minors. The first person I'd like to call on... CouncilF~n Johnson: Mr. Mayor, before the grocers insttt~te takes over this meeting and conducts this meeting, could we ask you a few c~stions? I mean we're not going to let you get away here real c~ick here. Continuously you have said that we need to do sc~.~thlng about minors. That we have to control the minors. Are you saying that the co~%rt system, the juvenile court system is inadequate and that the prosecution through the juvenile courts, that this council has sc~ething better than that that we can do? Give us just a suggestion. Three or four ti~s you've said that we should be doing something to prosecute these minors. What? City Council Meeting - February 26~ 199M Joe Hoyland: I think for starters .uou can enact some ordinances which put s(~e penalties on students. That's one thing. Councilman Johnson: So they can't be on the football team? Joe Hoyland: No. I think the schools can adequately handle that. I would talk one about financial penalties. For starters, we already have shoplifting laws in the State of Minnesota so that's what we have. We also have some diffic~lties that you cannot publically proclaim who these kids are. I mean they. are protected. Their anonymity is there. So what can you do frc~ a local level? You can require that any student or any minor that is caught buying tobacco products has to go through a program, that talks about the disadvantages of using tobacco products m~ch like an alcohol abuse type program,. I'm not that familiar with these programs but perhaps that's s(~ething you can do on a local basis. Council~.an Johnson: I'd like to ask our Attorney, can we do that on a local basis? Elliott Knetsch: ~here's nothing on the books right now either on the State level or on the City level. There is maybe a sce~=what analogous State Statute dealing with possession of a ~%all a%ount of marijuana which specifically authorizes the court to put offenders into a drug awareness or treatment program depending on their level. How their habit is. Analogizing from that and given that the State has left the door open foz cities to regulate in this area, I'd say that ~ probably could look at that. We could m~ve in that direction in addition to the State law penalties that already, exist. We already have shoplifting laws. I think any judge would probably be within his rights to take sc~one who has stolen cigarettes and put then in that kind of a program without having a city ordinance on that. That's just a matter of making the judges and the prosecutors aware that that's something that you're interested in. council~n Johnson: We could have an ordinance that advises the prosecutor, the county Prosec~ltor and the judge to do something like that but we could not force the judge to do anything be doesn't ~ant to do. Elliott Knetsch: You cannot force the judge but you, I think you could have an ordinance that would make that an option of a penalty. It could be a fine. It could be this education program. You could lay out the possible penalties. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, if the parents pay the penalties, it's no fine to the kid but I do like your idea on that and if that is, I think we ought to move that, if that is legally feasible, we ought to move that way to do that. Council~n Boyt: I'd disagree with that. I think you want to control the point of sale. Councilman Johnson: Well you've got to do that too. councilman Boyt: It's like controlling 5 versus controlling 1,~00. We're much better off to control 5. Joe Hoyland: Co[~cil~n, you are already controlling. City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Mayor Ch~,iel: If you'd like bo interrupt, please direct it back to the Chair~ Joe Hoyland: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Boyt. You're already doing that. State law requires or actually places severe penalties on clerks who sell to minors so I think a gross misdemeanor, up to $3,000.00 in financial penalties plus a year in jail or s(m'ething of that nature as the most extr~e penalty, that sends a pretty clear ~ssage at the point of sale. Without having to actually get into the store and say well you can't have it here. You can have it here. I think you're already addressing that. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Johnson. I would be willing to help you in any way that I can. I think what you're doing here, if you can take your ideas because you're clearly ahead of a lot of other co~nunities, take it to the State Health Department. Take it to the Anti-Smoking groups and propose that. I think it's very important that we Fake a stat~nt to young people and Fake a stat~nt as public policy makers. On the local basis as well as the State basis that it is wrong and here are penalties that you will suffer. I'm not conversant in legal ter~ as to what we can do and what we can't do but these are a couple of ideas. Another thing that ca~ to mind and this is sc~thing again that would have to be done on the State level but one of the things that kids cherish dearly is mobility. ~ney work very hard to get their license and it's very possible, if it is a priority of this cc~unity and of this state that we send a clear F.~ssage, then let's work to take away kid's drivers license if they're caught perhaps after a certain period of time with tobacco prod[~ts. They do that with alcohol and sc~ people say that tobacco is worse than alcohol so send the clear message. Mayor Chmiel: Tne only given problem, with that is that you may have 10 year olds and 11 year olds and 12 year olds that don't have driver's licenses so that presents a given problem. Joe Hoyland: Clearly Mr. Mayor and F~ers of the Council you're concerned about a very grave probl~, and we share that concern. For kids using tobacco products, having been a teacher, peer pressure is probably the greatest obstacle that you're going to have to try to overc(~. I'm not sure how any of us overco~ peel pressure but that to F~ is one of the greatest jobs you've got to tackle and I'm not sure, I don't have the answers on that but that se~.m to be one of the pri~ sources, particularly in the 10-11 year olds. And it is tragic that young people like that are using tobacco products. Councilwc~n Dialer: Mr. Mayor, I have a few co~emts. I guess to start off with I guess I'd like to say that I think we have a responsibility to protect our kids and I don' t want to see o~r kids criminalized. And you have indicated several ti~s here that you didn't think that there was a probl~ and I want to tell you again that there is a problem. I am not going to say that my children steal cigarettes but I have 4 beenagers and they have lots of friends and they cc~ over frequently and I overhear conversations that they don't think I'm hearing and I'm not going to give you any names or turn anybody in but I want you to know that they do do it and even the owner of Brooke's was here last time indicating that he inventoried every day and that he loses or has at least 1 carton per week unaccot~nted for. So we may think that that's a s~all n~%ber but it is happening and that was only one store so. I agree that we shouldn't maybe have put too F~ny restrictions on retailers but I would like to know how much revenue do the retailers lost frc~, the tobacco industry and how much do they pay to put their displays in the stores? If we wouldn't allow this, what revenue would you lose? 10 City Oouncil Meeting - February 26~ 1990 Joe Hoyland: Mr. ~yor, Oouncilw~nan Dimler. I'd have to let the retailers address that question and I think they've heard that and they'll be prepared to a~ that cp~stion. ~er, I'm not sure that they're being paid a certain amount to place it in a particular position baa a ~hole lot of relevance to the subject here. You're talkir~3 about restricting merchandising of a product. The fact that you're talking about place~mt in a store has no... Councilwc~n Dimler: Well I beg to differ with you because I think it's the tobacco industry that's behind this. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman. Behind what? Co,~cilw~man Dimler: Behind this opposition. Joe Hoyland: Mr. ~yor. Oouncilw~%an. I stand here because clearly ~vou're going into a retail store and you are dictating merchandising policy. I don't care if it's peanut butter or cereal or milk. You are dictating ~rchandising policy. That's something that is very near' ar~ dear to our people. Whe~ it's tobacco products. Whether it's candy. This the first step. We do not want to have any public body dictating merchandising policy. In fact Federal statutes uphold that. I think you can honor that. You're talking about on a very select basis, restraint of trade and you have to be aware of the grounds that you're gettin~ into. It's a whole new area. Councilw~n Dimler: Well is it true then that the tobacco industry does ind~ pay the retailer to put the display in? Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Oouncil~a~an. That may be the case with some retailers. It may not be the case with other retailers. I don't think we can say blank, cold, hard fact ~s they do. I would say it depends on the type of retailer. A s~ket, big high vol~%e supenv~ket operator who has a considerable share of the market, it's no different than being the prime time leader in a prime time television show. They can get more money for a particular ad because they have dev~nstra~ that they have a greater following. No difference. Mayor Chv, iel: Joe, I'd just like to clarify one thing. You're saying all the responsibility should be back on the kids. Ma~vbe it should but I think this City Council is that part of watching and knowing what we feel is right within our cc~,unity. Fr~, the aspects of public health and safety of those individuals, I think w~'re charged with that as ~_11 and I think that's what w~'re looking at fr(~, that aspect. Unless s(x~=one else has sc~ethir~3 else. Councilmen Boyt: I've got a couple questions. When we have these people speak to Lin, there's a couple things I'd like the~, to address. Do you prosecute people that you find with cigarettes and have stolen ~ from you? Then the other one is, do you have sc~e plan on how you're going to control or better control the sale of cigarettes? I'm not interested in ~at's been called crimtnalizing our youth. I think that the bigger problev, is the police won't pick them, up an~vway but we have control over how these things are going to be, or could have or how they're going to be distributed. I have a question for you specifically. Did your organization lobby one ~y or another on the changed State penalty for sale of cigarettes to minors? 11 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilmmn Boyt. We were %~aware that that particular legislation was even happening. We were as surprised as any. Had we known about it, we certainly would have had some opinions. Frankly it has been enacted. We were the only organization in the State to actively develop flyers and posters that could go at the check stands. In fact, probably the State proponent of anti-s~,okir~3, Jeanne WiggL~ called us and praised us for our actions. Clearly we got that message out sooner than anybody else and certainly before the effective date of that new law. Councilmmn Boyt: Okay. My final c(x~v, ent is, I'm glad we're talking about this issue. It's taken a lot of time but it's probably a good one to hear both sides on. Fro~, my standpoint and I think so~e of the other people on the Council, I'm not particuarly interested in entering into a test case to see if this is legal but I am very interested in seeing the store owners beco~ more involved in controlling the sale of cigarettes. Thank you. That's all I've got. Mayor Chv, iel: Jay? Councilm~n Johnson: Mr. Mayor, just to follow up slightly on what you were saying. I believe this is not trying to restrict merchandising. This is to define what we believe responsible m~rchandising is in this city and whether we believe the tobacco industry is targeting youth and people near the age of 18 or below or whatever that is. Kind of side issues and all on this thing but what is the responsible way to market this product. It's a product that's supposed to be restricted to certain classes of people, i.e. those people 18 years old or older and therefore I think that it's sale should be somewhat restrictive. Not set out Just like candy or pop. The other, are you familiar with To~, Th~r~ and their policy? I was, this w~eke~d at a Tom, Thum~ store in Prior Lake and they meet this ordinance today. Right now. As is. I asked their m~nager, I said wow. He says that's our policy. When he said our policy, that could have been his store policy or that may be Tom, Thumb corporate. I haven't been to look at any other Tc~, Thum~s to see if that was that way. I went to a PDQ today. PDQ was extr~ly close to m~eting this. They have no sales. I don't ~_~c it being that, they need a little plastic shield around their display on the counter so that it can't be reached from, the front but other than that, they were in cc~,pliance with this ordinance as is. We're'talking almost no cost. Here are two responsible m~_rchandisers that are doing it. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Johnson. I'd like to address those because you're right. I spoke with Wally Pettit who happens to be the owner of 190 sc~e Tc~, Thum~s in the state of Minnesota and Wisconsin and I asked him, what his practice was on this and he said that they in fact do put all of their tobacco products behind the counter and I'm not sure if they're talking about every single thing including chewing tobacco and that type of thing. I'm not sure but he just said tobacco, cigarettes. Councilmmn Johnson: In Prior Lake, the chewing tobacco and the pipe tobacco and all that stuff are behind the counter. Joe Hoyland: ~ne reason that he stated that they do that is beca[%~e of security. Their own internal policies. With 190 stores, he can't be out at every store watching them. As a consequence, they simply say from a security, from a loss prevention standpoint, we're just going to do this. Now they made 12 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 that decision voluntarily2 Councilman Johnson: So there m~st be some shoplifting of tobacco going cm if 190 stores have m=ade that decision. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilman. I think what ~u've got is you've got a large chain doing business in this state and they're not being forced to do that. They're making a clear decision on their own to enter into that type of decision. They've got sc~e constraints because they can't be at every store. Now sc~e other people that speak here tonight are in the same situation have the same n~er of stores and they could probably address why they have certain policies and why they have different ones. One thing that I would offer and this may be an alternative for you. Without having to go to the fozm of having an ordinance and potentially having a ~est case, why not go to the retailers and say, we think we've got a proble% with tobacco getting into the hands of minors. Would you consider on a voluntary basis e~barking on this project with us a~d try to reasom with people. Frcm our standpoint 2Du'd be setting up some kind of a situation where you'd say we're going to work together to addres, s ~hat we think is a proble% without going the step of having to enact a public policy that may have some negative ram, ifications. For us and potentially for you. Councilm~n Johnson: Well I'd like to publically cor~/ratulate Tc~ Thumb on their responsible m~rchandising. And what ~s the gentle%art's name? Joe Hoyland: Wally Pettit. Co~cilman Johnson: Wally Pettit. Thank you Wally. Councilwoman Dimler: I ' 11 second that. Councilm~n Workm~n: Mr. Mayor, could I make sc~ omnv~nts? Mayor Ch~,iel: Yes Tc~. Councilman Workman: I guess I ~nt to ask Jim Larkin a quick question. Jim, does your firm, and maybe this is, does your fin~ represent any tobacco industry. or groups? Jim, Larkin: No. We represent the Grocer's Association but do not represent any tobacco industry or the tobacco cc~.~anies. Councilm~n Workm~n: Isn't your law firm, representing the tobacco? Jim, Larkin: We may have done s~me work at the legislature. Co,~cilm~n Workmen: Aren't they currently working at the legislature to get through sc~e legislation that would disable our current vending machine ordinance? Jim Larkin: They may be involved in the vending m~chine ordinance. I just don't know and I'm not trying to be cute. I'll find out for you and let you know by to~)rrow but we have 85 lawyers and I don' t keep a book on ~hat every one of the~, does. 13 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 Council~n Work,mn: Well I guess they are~ Jim Larkin: Alright. If you have that information. Councilman Workman: Well yeah. I want to ~Lphasize a little bit Ursula's co~nts that and I have sc~, I have probably 3 realms of tobacco infor~mtion but that in fact the tobacco lobby is very good. They will tell you they are very good and t_hey are very good in getting your law firm which is very good. Everything is very good about that. The proble~L we have is and cigarettes are not very good and I don't think Joe Hoyland will tell us that he thinks cigarettes are good or any retailer thinks cigarettes are good or anybody thinks cigarettes axe good or that they're pro~,oting the~, to their own children or their grandchildren or whoever so we've got kind of a contradiction here of profits and dollars versus what we know s~ething is not good and it is bad but we' re F. mking so dog gone much money and we have to continue to sell these things. ~ne statistics that I picked ~%9 from Joel on Friday were that 15% to 20% of the sales at a convenience store are based om cigarettes. It's an awful lot of ~)ney for this City Council to be potentially with or denying it. ~nat's I guess a bit of infor~mtion for the public who's wondering why all the fuss is. If we're going to rearrange a couple of counters, why is there such a fuss? Because it's a pretty sacred cow I think. Might not the grocers and this is going to you know, warrant two more c(x~Lents. One, really what is the theft of one carton of cigarettes per store per week to a corporation. It's really nothing. That is really nothing and so what is really nothing to that corporation could very well be an awful lot to a ~nall bunch of city council people out here in the pucker brush. ~t FLy only other c(x~Lent and I '11 keep it to that is, might not the Grocer's Association be the perfect group of people to lead the campaign to say we're not interested in selling these products? They really can't be c(~Lpared to most any other product that's sold in the store. Joe, you talked about completely changing the entire inside of a huge grocery store around tobacco products. That sounds so drastic that it does tell ~e that obviously the dollar's there and the tobacco industry has plenty left to do that. Wouldn't the Minnesota Grocer's Association be the perfect group of people to say yeah, we do believe that cigarettes are a terrible product or a terrible habit and ~ybe we should be ~king sc~, and I believe in c(m~r(~,ising. Obviously Joe we talked about that. I'm just getting over my carton a w~ek habit. Wouldn't they be the perfect group of people to say look at us. We're going to do s(~thing about this. Jim Larkin: I'd like to respond specifically to that and let F~, and Joe can respond to it too if he'd like to but I think if you want to say to the~., help us. Take the position, that cigarettes are not good for minors and should not be sold to th~,, I think that's perfectly appropriate. I think' that's what Joe has said to you but where I get, and this is perhaps a philosophical argument and you asked does our fin~, represent people in the tobacco industry. I also happen to believe in due process and that's a co~,it~nt I took an oath to when I beca~ a lawyer. Over my unduly long life at this point because I've b~ at council ~etings where I've been threatened with close to hanging and so forth. Not here. I think it's easy to find a quick fix to a solution and then go h(x%e and say gee we did good but it doesn't always work that way. I'd r~Lind you that in 1900 the ~,erican Medical Association was criticizing those who wanted to restrict cocaine. There's an article in this week's Financial World that talks about one of the worse addictions in society, and there are studies on this, is ga~ling and yet you have the State of Minnesota and this is an article 14 City. Council M~eting - February 26, 1990 that evaluates that, sponsoring that. So if you're looking for a whipping boy, the grocers are convenient and you can say w~ did this and aren't w~ good but I suggest that the grocers are here and want to ~Drk with you to find a solution. I think that's an appropriate position for ths~.. I haven't heard and I have read the transcript and where does theft of cigarettes cc~e from and I started thinkin~ about this. You know the easiest place to steal cigarettes is if your parents ~v~)ke. If your parents don't ~%oke and you've got a crowd of 10 people and the statistics are that 3 out of 10 people s~)ke, you can steal the~ from the neighbors parents and what restrictions do .uou have om that? Or ~hat do ~u try. to do to that? Again, I can go on and on about it... (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Councilwoman Dim]er: ...distinction that w~'re making and I'm saying that you, if you're representing the Grocer's Association, you can't say, you know it's illegal to sell to minors and here's what we're going to do to help that cause and that's all that we're asking you to do. We're not going to s~-op cigarette sales to adults. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman, we have done that. We have publicized the State Law which states that it is against the law to sell to minors. We have put placards together. We have provided ths~ for our mac, ers. I stand ready to ask what more we can do. Councilman Johnson: Did you do that before or after it became a gross misde%eanor? Joe Hoyland: Certainly Mr. Mayor, Councilman Johnson. Gertainly ~hen the penalty, for the clerk was raised to a point where it got their attention and there ~as a great deal of opportunity for publicity, for that type of situation. We have always demonstrated to our members that it's against the law. Our m~m~ers will co~ before you and say it is against the law and they uphold the law of Minnesota. Frankly we didn't take out an ad campaign to declare that but there are a lot of laws on the books in Minnesota and a lot of laws on the books in Chanhassen and frankly we did not have the r~ to draw attention to any partic~%lar law above any other. Mayor Ch~,iel: Maybe what we could do is just move on to have those people who are present who want to make their presentation. I w~uld like to try. and limit that to possibly abotlt 5 minutes per each and I think we can probably do it because we heard fr~, so~e of these people before. Joe Hoyland: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The first person I'd like to call on is Lan Fillmeyer from Superk~erica. Len Fillm~yer: Mr. Mayor, Councilmen. My. name is Lan Fillmeyer from Super ;~rica office in Bloc~,ington and everything I was goirg to say has already ~ said and discussed but I would like to answer a couple of questions that I don't think was answered and talk a little bit about what, be it Super k%erica. The fact that w~ say again has been said many times, we don't have a problem selling cigarettes. We think we do a real good job and I think we talked about what are we doing to prevent that. I think we're doing just about everything in our power and I think in many of our sto~es, our clerks even take an extra step. Instead of ~ssing ages kind of everybody that looks under 25, card th~, so I 15 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 think we're doing everything we can to prevent the sale of cigarettes to minors and we' re going to continue doing that. But a couple of q%~stions that were asked or discussed here was the fact of selling cigarettes or having cigarette displays on a floor. Do we get paid money by the cigarette co~i~ for doing that and the answer is yes. Yes we do. We get paid for putting displays of Pepsi on the floor. We get paid for putting Coke on the floor. We get paid for putting Pizza's on the floor. Displaying oil. We get paid for putting many things on the floor and openly displaying those it~ because that's where they sell. Tae public today really dev~nds that of us. ~nat we are what we are, convenience store and they cc~ to %m for that reason. They don't want to be hassled in anything. We get the average custom.~_r sc~where between 5 and 6 minutes so it isn't like they're going to shop our store amd they have a lot of ti~ so it's important to us that we have these cigarettes on the floor. Nu~er one, they would never fit in our checkout. Num~_r one. We choose to market th~, on the floor in full view of our people and in m~ny cases there is already a seo~rity rack there and we don't lose, I mean I stand here and say we never lost a pack of cigarettes or a carton of cigarettes to minors, we're not that naive. We have and we probably still will lose a pack of cigarettes here and there. It doesn't Fatter, things we have behind the co~ter we lose as well. I ~an we're in that industry but our overall numbers are very, what we consider, very ~'~nageable and if we have a probl~v~ with cigarettes as every store and SuperAm~erica, they're not on the floor. So~ stores they're definitely behind the counter and for all kinds of reasons. We say again, when we have in our possession here tonight again a tape, a training tape that we use. A real tape that shows the theft of cigarettes that o~.~ people all see and all live by. Not one teenager is on there. That's not by choice. We didn't cut that out. It just never showed up on there so our question is, we don't know what more we can do. We have no way we can put cigarettes in a counter without so~e mmssive reconstruction of ~mny of our stores. And I would like to answer any questions you have as far as marketing cigarettes. Councilman Johnson: In my original proposal on this I had a r~otely controlled device. You have your large displays at SuperAmerica of carton cigarettes where that could be basically locked and then rev, otely unlocked to allow a c~mto~r to grab his carton of cigarettes under the view and the control of the store ev, ployee. Does that give you much heartburn? Len Fillmeyer: Councilm~n Johnson, we have some of those and there are so~ of those out there. ~here are buzzers out there on some carton racks of cigarettes that buzz when a carton of cigarettes is lmllled out of there. We don't ~u%derstand the m~c~ for it n~er one. I m~3n we think we can control o~= business to the degree that if we had a probl~t, we're going to be the first ones to change that and ju~ in with both feet and get the controls we need in order to because cigarettes in a cc~.pany like ours are not a high m~rgin itev,. It isn't like cigarettes are the best thing we do so it isn't like you can lose a lot of cigarettes and still Fake money. Councilmmn Johnson: How mmny? I mean what level of theft of cigarettes would turn you on? If you have, say you do a thousand cartons a week and you lose 10 cartons, would you be upset by a 1% loss? Len Fillm~yer: We don't have 1% loss there? We don't have 1% loss. In cigarettes it's probably, not probably. Between cigarettes and beer, the most 16 City Oouncil Meeting - February 26, 1990 two controlled irons we sell, we know every, shift if w~ lost a pack 05 2 Of cigarettes. We know every shift. We count cigarettes in the stores every shift every day so there is no other it~% in tt~ store other than ~--~r that we have those kind of controls on. We know what's happening in cigarettes. Councilman Johnson: Okay. On your counter displays. The counter displa.vs were designed with a clear to where the people could ~ the displa~us and the ~sloyee had straight access to them, what's the difference? Len Fillmeyer: I'm not sure I understand that there is any difference. We do have sc~e cigarettes on the counter in full view of our e%plo~s right in front of our cashiers. Now the only way scmeb(~y could steal those cigarettes is if they grab the~, and run. Councilman Johnson: Or you've got, in the case of TH 7/41 store, you've got 2 cash registers. Cigarettes on one and the e~loyee on the other. Len Fillmeyer: That can happen. Councilman Johnson: It's a little hard to see unless ~u can transplant the eyes to the back of the head. Len Fillmore. r: But again, we're not losing them,. I m~an we don't ~derstand the probl~. We don't understand why. we're doing this because it's a great, for cc~(oetitive reasons we lose all our cc~titi~ess with our competition right across the street. Councilman Johnson: I think part of it is what I said before. ~he m~ssage we are giving to the children by. having these large displays of cigarettes at the same place they buy. their candy is that cigarettes are good and we ~mnt to make a different ~essage to the children. Len Fill~=yer: Again, I say that's not the issue. Councilman Johnson: Sure it is. Councilwoman Dim, let: Mr. Fillm~ar, I thank you for answering my questions about the industry, tobacco industry, paying for the displays. I wonder if you would be willing to give me an av~)unt as to ~ahat ~Duld be the loss in revenue if our ordinance indeed would disallow these types of displays? Len Fil]meyer: I don't have those n~v~_rs in front of me but it's dramatic. Councilwoman Dimler: Is it? Is it more than or the same as or less than the other ite~ that you m~ntioned? Pizzas or whatever. Len Fillmeyer: As we said, that's ~ brought out here several times. In the sales of a convenience store, s(~ewhere frc~ 16% on up of your business is tobacco products so if you took those off the floor as Pepsi, if you took it off the floor, or candy for that matter, the sales on that product go right down the tube. %~e public ~mnts the% on the floor. Councilw~van Dimler: You're losing the sales but also you get paid for just putting up the display ~hether you sell they, or not? 17 City Council Meeting - February 261 1990 Len Fillm~yer: If w~ didn't have th~, on the floor, there w~uld be no display F~)ney. No, there would not be any money. Councilwoman Dim, let: There is display money though... Len Fillmeyer: ...for mass displays. Councilw~van Dim]er: And if you put them behind the counter there's no display Len FilLm~yer: Tnat's right. Councilwoman Dim]er: And it's a substantial amLount you say? Len Fillmeyer: A s~f~stantial. Councilw0~an Dim]er: More so than pizzas? Len Fillm~yer: Dramatic. Councilwoman Dim, let: ~nank you. CounciLman Johnson: Does that display money, does that include the large groups of cartons? When you have the 20 foot row of cartons, is that considered a mass display and you're paid to have that? Len Fillmeyer: Yes it is. Councilman Johnson: Okay. I was thinking F~stlythose small displays on the counter that other... Len Fillmeyer: Well small displays pay small dollars. Councilman Johnson: You're saying there's bigger dollars in the big carton display? Len FilLm~yer: Sure there is. Mayor Chmiel: Alright are there any other q%~stions? Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to propose some way of moving the m~=eting along. Can w~ refer this to the Public Safety Cc~,ission or in sc~ way, I envision that w~'re going to be on this issue for another half hour. Mayor Ch~,iel: Being that w~ have each of these people here Bill, I think we'll adhere to that 5 minutes and hopefully theymaybe able to finish it a lot quicker. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor and Councilm, e~.~ers, a co[%ole of key points and one is that the Minnesota Unfair Sales Act requires retailers to m~rk up cigarettes and tobacco products 8% above their actual cost. Bear that in mind. Second is that Minnesota has the highest excise tax on tobacco products in the United States. I believe the current n~er is about 38 cents per pack. Consequently the price 18 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 199Q is up. The next speaker that I'd like to call up is Coll~_.n Lapell and she's also fr~ Superk,erica. I'm a Super~rica area m~nager. Our store on 7 and 41 reports directly to me. Two ~a~eks ago I was here and addressed this Council with 3 points on interest which tonight I an going to reconfirm those. Last week I showed you our signage package which I have again with m~ here tonight. This signage package can be found in all of our Super~v~_rica stores. Today I counted 16 signs in my store in (2k~nhassen posted on the sales floor and also back in our break rocks. These signs are used as a tool of reinforcement not only to our cashiers but as well as to our custody_rs that SA wants only the legal sale. Our training manual is gone through with each brand new employee. Inside this book are laws for selling tobacco, company rules and regulations and techniques the trainer can use with the new em~oloyee as far as role playing. What he or she will c(x~e across selling tobacco products. Two ~eks ago I mentioned a video tape that is an act~ml footage of custom, rs stealing cigarettes. I have that with ~ here tonight. Leonard Fillmeyex also made m~ntion of this tape tonight. Again, not one of the customers stealing cigarettes is a minor. We use this tape to show our new cashiers and ev~oloyees what to watch' out for to safeguard against theft. Super~merica is com~,itted to the legal sale of tobacco. We are constantly following up and checking our stores for c(m~)liance. Thank you very much. Joe Hoyland: The next speaker is Jeff Steel, also at Super~rica. Jeff Steel: Mayor, City Council m~bers. As I mentioned 2 w~eks ago that my store did not and still does not have an inventory, control problem on tobacco products. One of the tools we use to control inv~mtory on tobacco products is doing a complete inventory twice a day, once per shift. By. doing this if we wore to have a problev,, corrective action could be taken immediately. SA has a bonLm prograv, available to it's store managers. To qualify, for a bonus, inventory, control is essential. A carton of cigarettes is one of the m~st expensive single itev~ in my store. For me to allow tobacco theft ~Duld be taking m~ney out of my own pocket. If cigarette theft Ms a probl~v, in my store, I would be locking the% up myself but it is not a problem and I do not wish to lock they, up. There would be no reason for a customer to buy. a carton of cigarettes frc~, my store. I would lose the prc~otions from the tobacco c~v,~y so my custody_rs would go elsewhere to save the m~mey on their cigarette purchases. Example, right across the street to Driskill's Super Value and Snyder's Drug that has the cigarettes both not only packages that wo do not have out in the open m~stly except the shall promotion on the counter, but also their cartons that axe right out in the open and will continue to receive the prcmotional allowances from the tobacco ccmpany that you will deny me with this ordinance. Thank you. Joe Hoyland: The next speaker is Doug Coffee, also at SuperAmerica. Do~3 Coffee: Mayor, Council people. My nsme is DOug Ooffee. I work at tbs Super~merica. I F~nage the store on 212 at the intersection of 169. Jeff and Collc~n~ have already, talked about the stgnage and training which wo also use. fk~rently my cartons of cigarettes are behind my counter due to the physical size and design of my store. There is ho~ez the possibility that my store would be redesigned or rebuilt s(m~day and at that point I feel it should be up to the retailers to decide where they. merchandise-their products. We have a 19 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 display of cigarettes on our checkout counter and since I've been at this store w~ have not had a shoplifting probl~, at all. Whether it be cigarettes or any other F~rchandise. ~nank you. Joe Howland: Next speaker is Lloyd Lenin, Holiday Station Stores. Lloyd Lenin: Mayor, Council F~ers. I'm just going to touch briefly on our corporate policy and w~ do enforce the State law very dramatically. Tne penalty in fact, an ~,ployee does sell cigarettes illegally to a minor, he is responsible for the fine. We will not cover him on that. He is also, can face suspension or termination but the responsibility of the fine is going to be his and we do not co~tpensate him for that. (k~r training program when people are hired covers alcohol and cigarettes very thoroughly. We have the% wear badges to the fact that we check ID for cigarettes and liquor, or beer I should say. It also takes the pressure off of our cashiers that they, the customer knows he's going to be checked. We do have the pack displays at the checkout also. We have the carton displays on the counter. We have also put video in ~ny of our stores. ~ch of that is for robbery deterrent but also it is at the checkout. The ~.'~3nager can review those .which he does ever~uday and that way he can observe also if sales are being F.~de to minors by the other crew Space in our checkouts, as Len stated in their type of arrangement also, we do not have room in our checkouts for the carton displa~vs. We enforce, I'm being redundant, very ~,phatically the policies as far as selling any type of tobacco to minors. Joe Hoyland: The next speaker is Jeff Hogrud of Holiday Station Stores also. Jeff Hogrud: Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Jeff HogrLE]. I represent the Holiday in Chanhassen here and fr~, what I have seen, I've worked here 4 F~)nths, frc~ what I have seen you have fine kids here. We do not have a probl~ with cigarette theft or other theft at our store. Our e~,ployees are trained to check ID's. They are trained and aware of the conseq%~ences if they sell to minors. They know they are responsible for the fine and could lose their job. We have ca~ras that focus on the tills and the cigarettes. Again, we do not have a cigarette problem, at the Chanhassen Holiday. Joe Hoyland: We're moving right along. Dennis Carlson, Brooke Superettes. Dennis Carlson: My na~ is Dennis Carlson. I'm Director of Operations for Brooke Food Markets. Excuse my cold. I had other things prepared. I know you want to keep this brief. I'll just say as a F~a~er of Brooke's Food Markets, we feel we are very responsible F~er of the cc~nunity of Chanhassen in which we do business. We are not, it is not a part of our company to try to violate laws or do sc~'~thing against the law. However ~ feel it is necessary for ~m to be able to operate in a F~u%ner which we can be cc~,petitive with other people in our industry. By taking away displays, you're taking away part of our cc~etitive edge or part of just meeting our co~oetition. Yes, cigarettes are a valuable portion of our business. They account for a lot of dollars in sales. I feel by taking the displays away, not only are you giving [~ an unfair advantage but you're cutting our revenues by taking away the impulse iteEs that adult cust(~rs should have the option of purchasing. If not just a pack of cigarettes, it might be a pack of cigarettes with a deck of playing cards. It gives th~, an option so it's not just brand conscience, there is a prc~)tion available with that. Frc~; there I just would like to answer a couple of 20 City Council ~eting - February 26, 1990 one of the% regardirg our policy, of theft of any. product in our store, we' 11 prosecute. ~hether it's a candy bar, a pack of cigarettes or a can of pop. That is our policy, and we adhere to it and I can bring n~bers and I can't evem give you the m~nbers but it's large. But I can say very. honestly, in my 15 years with Brooke's Food Markets I don't reT~anber prosecutin~ a minor for theft of cigarettes. But I will for candy and I will for pop. Councilman Boyt: You're telling me that you haven't caught a minor stealing cigarettes in your carreer? Llo~ Lenin: I have not. No, I have not sir. Councilman Boyt: And your stores haven' t? Llo~ Lenin: I'm not going to say that. I'm sayirg to my knowledge, I cannot remoter catching a ~[nor stealing cigarettes. Pop, candy, tremendous. But we do prosecnlte. If we do prosecute, we will prosecute. That is just our company policy.. You ~_re talking about display pa~nts. Yes, there are display pa.uments but I know for a fact our ~ last year between Coke and Pepsi, their pa~u~ents were higher than they w~re from the tobacco companies so we are in business to make a profit. Are there any. questions? Mayor Chv, iel: I guess not. ~nank' s Dennis. Oouncilman Johnson: I have one stall one. Most of your displays are counter displays. You don't have the large carton display that SuperAmerica has. Lloyd Lenin: No we don't. Most of then, we do have a Mall carton display on the floor. We have a temporary display for pr(xnotional items and then we have counter displays. councilman Johnson: On the counter displays, would you lose your display value if a clear plastic shield was placed in front of that display to where it was still probably displayed? It's still visible to the customer. They can still say hey, grab ~ a pack of whatever. Lloyd Lenin: Very definitely we would. Other things we've tried behind the counter that way, people don' t ask for then. I don' t know why.. They. don' t want to bother the clerk. V~atever it might be. 14~_never you take that self service advantage away, people will not ask. CoL~cilman Johnson: So you think the tobacco industry will take that money away frc~, you then? Lloyd Lenin: I believe it' s very possible. I can' t speak for that. councilman Johnson: How lorg have these displays been around like this? Lloyd Lenin: I've ~ in the business 15 years, since I've been in the business. councilman Johnson: That's what I thought. The carton displa.us seem to be s~thing new. 21 City Oouncil Meeting - February 26, 1990 Joe Hoyland: The last speaker is Mike Young, also of Brooke's Food Markets~ Councilman Johnson: Before Mike gets started, does he want to change anything he said last time? Make any corrections to his... Mike Young: Well actually I do Jay since I know you ~re in my store. Council~z3n Johnson: Every day. Mike Young: I see you. I hope my people are polite too. Council~mn Johnson: Ch yeah. I get along. In fact they've got sc~e real good things to say about you. Mike Young: Well, back to the issue. Act~mlly a point of fact. When I said, at the last meeting I stated that my displays were within 3 1/2 feet. Okay, at the ti~ I ~=asured, my Camel, my temporary display ~as ~,pty and I forgot it so you were correct. I was mistaken. It is farther away than I thought it was but it is still within clear view of my cashiers as my cashier illustrated to you when you were in Thursday. Council~mn Johnson: She could see through the rack of mmgazines and see the bottc~, of that display. Mike Young: Which is pretty good considering that display was slightly out of position and should have ~ forward more than it was. Councilman Johnson: And it is forward now. Mike Young: Yeah. It's where it should have been to start with. It got moved when the floor was cleaned. Counci l~n Johnson: Right. Mike Young: Okay. I did want to address your visit last Thursday. My. cashier called ~ right after you left saying that a council~er had been in. That he was very derrogatory toward ~ which does not particularly offend Fe anyway. I've had lots of people be derrogatory to ~. But it left her quite upset and that's a condition I don't want to see happen. Right now we have a difference of opinion. Okay? It's obvious to all of us here. The retailers want to keep their displays. They ~mnt to do business in their way. The council wants to correct a probl~, that's serious and I mean I agree. I have two s~.mll children. It's a definite concern. It's a concern for me as a parent. I can understand your concern. I also understand our concern. We're in business. We're trying to be co~petitive. We're trying to survive. We are willing to work with you. Now what it seemed to ~e frc~, talking to my cashier was that this issue was c~ing down to a personal issue between yourself and myself which left her upset. I can't afford that type of activity going on in my store. It upsets my cashier. It reduces their efficiency plus I had several, two custom, rs ~t to F~ on it. That they were not pleased with it happening and didn't know what was going on. consequently, on that same night, not particularly related, but about a half hour after you left two young boys came into my store with a note saying please sell my son such and such brand of cigarettes. Whatever it was. 22 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 My. cashier who' s very. good, told th~ forget it. There' s no way. You' r~ not 18. You're not getting anything. I don't care if you've got a note fr~m God and she didn't give it to ~. The kids proceeded to press her and when she told them, that she would be happy, to call the police and have th~% picked up for tryin~ to buy cigarettes illegally, they. informed her that s~v~=one had sent ~, in and given them $5.00 a piece to try this. Now, I don't know what's going on there and to be perfectly honest I don't care but it illustrates to me very. w~ll that my cashiers are very conscientious about keeping an eye on the kids. Watching ~ to make sure that they ID everyone. I mean occasionally like when M~. Johnson was in, he saw my cashier did not ID someone he was c~stionable about. Because that person c(~v~=s in my store every, day and has been ID'd 10 oz 12 tim~=s, she knows this person. ~ that they are of the legal age. Went to school with this particular person. As for the statement that wa lose a carton of cigarettes a w~ek, I stated every 2 weeks but I won't split hairs on that. B~t I used to work for ~k)ntgcmery Wards and they invest a lot of F~ney into research and their research shows that 80% of all theft is employee related so that would take us down to 1 pa~k a week. And 1 pack a ~k fr~, your 4 convenience stores that .~x)u have in town d oesn' t am~)unt to m~ch cigarettes. Thanks for your time. Mayor Ch~,iel: ~nank you. Exactly 5 minutes Mike. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor and m~ers of the City. Council. I appreciate the courtesy that you have extended to the retailers in the city. and to myself. I r~main available and willing to work with you in anyway that we can to address the probl~v~ that you're facing specifically here in Chanhas~ and I'm sure that the situation here is no different than any other city. around the State. Thank y~uo Mayor Ch~iel: I'd like to m~ve that wa *~ble this it~ because ~. ~rkin ~o's re~e~ti~ ~~~ ~~r's ~iati~ is ~t goi~ ~ ~ ~le to ~ it on ~ 12~. I'd li~ ~ m~e ~t ~ ~le it ~ ~ch 26~. ~~i~ ~r~: I ~d ~~ ~t. Jim Larkin: Mr. Mayor, I can change it but I'm supposed to be in North Carolina on the 26th but in that case I represented Medtronics Distributor and he doesn't sell tobacco honest but I think I can m~ve that one around if it's a matter of sc~ urgency, to the Council. Thro~h Mr. Highland we will again make representatives of that group available to cooperate with anybody fro~, the City who the City would want to designate to determine first of all the extent of the probl~, of minor theft here. I think it goes without saying, and it's already been said, that they have an ind~t to stop any kind of theft. Now I happened to look the other day and ~ bow much a pack of cigarettes cost. I m~an the last tim~ I r~m~er looking at the price it was about a buck or less and now it's over $2.00 I think. Mayor C~,iel: It is. So~ $2.25 amd sc~e $2.50 depending upon ~ere ~u're lookin~. Mayor Chv, iel m~ved, Co,~cilman Workman seconded to table action on the City Code ~~nt limiting the sale of tobacco frcm behind the counter only until March 26, 1990. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. 23 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 10.1 AND 10.2 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF ~D (EAST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA) , PETER AND DEANNA BRANDT. Mayor Ch~,iel: Is there anyone here wishing to address this issue other than... Council~n Work~n: It was mC understanding that the applicant wanted this tabled? Mayor C~m;iel: That's correct k~t I was just wondering if there w~s anyone else here who wanted to discuss this who ca~ in specifically for it. If there's no one here to discerns this specific its., w~ can honor .~t being tabled until the next Council ~'~eting because the fact that the people are out. Mr. Laughinghouse would you like to please... ~uct Laughinghouse: ~rt Laughinghouse Mr. Mayor representing the Brandts. The first thing I w~nt to say is I appreciate the extra effort that the city staff exerted at my request to get this thing on the agenda tonight and I thought I was organized and I wasn't and sc~ of the people t_hat I thought could be here tonight could not be so that's what happened. We did make an effort to find the people and the neighbors who might be address it and I think apparently w~'ve got everybody turned away so with your agreement we'd like to go to the 12th. CounciL-~n Johnson moved, Co~ncilwc~n DiF~ler seconded to table the preliminary plat for Peter and Deanna Brandt at the applicant's req~est until March 12, 1990. All voted in favor and the Fotion carried. Council~n Work~n: Might I suggest for tree preservation w~ save this packet. It ' s h~m~)ngous. Mayor Ch~,iel: That's one long branch. Let's save the information that ~ have so we don't have to redo it. COMPOSITION OF THE HRA, ~ILMANWORKMAN. councilFmn Work~en: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to and I brought this up two times now. Basically to get City Council in~.~t, I have received an awful lot of ~lic input concerning and justifying whether or not in fact it might not he a bad idea for the Chanhassen City (~ouncll to in fact beco~ the HRA or an economic develo~nt cc~,ission effectively handling both tasks. The City Manager's c(m'u~nt is in o~r packet. This would be sc~thlng of a process that would take, it looks like Fmybe, a couple several years to do potentially but I 'm interested in hearing ~ybe from what the Council might think. What the [m]blic might think. What the City Manager might think and take it away. Mayor Ch~,iel: Roger, I'd like an explanation fr~, you from the legality aspect. Does the Co~cll have the authority to disban the HRA? Roger Knutson: No. First I can say that under State Statute there's an HRA in every single city in the state of Minnesota. Tnat's by Statute. Each and every HRA in the state of Minnesota is not organized and operating but it's there. 24 City Council Meeting - February 26 ~ 1990 You can ' t disban i t. Co, u~ilmen Workman: How might, could the City Cbuncil be called the HRA? Boger Knutson: No you can' t. Councilman Workman: Could we be called an econo,.dc develolmv~nt cc~,,ission? How would that affect our HRA districts? Our TIF districts? Roger Knutson: You asked a couple of questions. Can the City be the HRA? No. The Councilm~bers could all be the HRA cc~x~ssioners and the terms of the HRA cc~,issioners can coincide with the Council term. so if you're not on the Council you can't be on the HRA. You're still tw~ legally separate and distinct entities. Co,mcilw0~an Dim]er: So the same body can say okay now w~'re m~eting as the HRA and we're m~eting as the council? Roger Knutson: I work in sc~ cities where that happens. Mayor Ch~,iel: Let me ask another question l~oger. If we were to ask each of the m~ers that are existing on the HRA if they would take the position to resigning, how can that be accomplished? Roger Knutson: You j,mt spelled it out. Ask. Yes you certainly can. I m_~an you could, in whatever form, yo~ wanted to present it to ~. Say we think we ~nt, if that's what your desire, but the City council m~.t~rs should act as the HRA cc~ssioners and you could ask for their resignation to implement that and then you could pass an ordinance. You'd have to a?end one of your ordinances that would basically say fr~, now on all HRA commissioners shall be city. council m~ers. co[~ncil~an Johnson: But if they don't ~ant to resign, they don't have to? Roger Knutson: Right. Co,~ciL-an Workman: Mr. Mayor, I guess to back up sc~ of this. Ail of us in one way, form, or another cam~oaigned as elected officials on the pr~Hse of acco{u~tability. Sc~ people feel a little more com..fortable with having the ability to s~ve of the decisions that are made by. an elected official rather than a cc~,ission that's appointed and that's where this came from to me. I'm a C~.~ncil appointed member of the HRA and I don't see that kind of accountability as a problev, for myself personally. I gt~=ss I'm not sure what we as a city would lose by. doing this. A~ain, I'll emphasize that I don't have a probl~, with any of the m~ers of the HRA personally as far as their task, etc. but there is and has been ever since I've ~ on this City. Council, a public which has asked for the potential for that to happen and that's why. I'm bringing it up. Oo, mcilman Johnson: When we first, when Bill and I first got assigned here, there were 2 m~ers of the Council on the HRA. Then that slowly, well because of te~],.~ changing and whatever, it ended up with none eventually and now it's back to one. I'd like to see it maintained at 2. This Council and all of us on it have a lot of responsibilities beyond just this body in that I'm on the 25 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 recycling c~;ittee. The Council assigned me to Southwest Metro Transit Cc~vdttee. ~ne Carver County Solid Waste Advisory C~vLittee. ~nere's only so much of ~%s to go around. I attend Planning Cc~vLission meetings when I can and Park and Rec when I can and all these different m~etings. I personally feel that I'm spreading myself pretty darn thin for the citizens as is and while I'd like to attend m~)re HRA ~eetings, they're at the same time as the b~m co~r, ission I believe, or is that Public Safety? Anyway, I've got conflicts with, I couldn't do it if I had to or things like that. I think that w~ do need Fore presence on that and that should be Council appointments of at least 2 ms,bets of the Council should be assigned to the HRA. I almost feel that each com~,ission should have a Council representative on it but that gets pretty tough too. As I said, there's only so m~ny of ~%s and there's only so m~ny hours in the day. We're all professionals and have our other jobs to do and have our families to do plus working for the City. Councilmen Workm. an: You don't see that accountability factor at all? I mean the HRA takes care of an awful lot of expenditures. Co~unciL, an Johnson: That's why I'd like to see at least 2 members of the City Council on the HRA. A lot of the stuff the HRA does, does end up back here. They can say they want the streets this way but we have to approve the constriction. Any [~blic works that's done, we have to approve the construction. We can get to a point and say no. You're not going to run that sewer there. ~'nat would eliminate the hotel or s~vething. Councilman Workman: The point that I'm trying to get at quickly is that then what we have is a situation where people, councilm~ers included, end up saying to themselves, well I think I made that decision or well the HRA Fade that decision I think or I made but I'm not sure so it's like the downtown shrubbery episode was one where I wasn't sure where the decision was m~de. Then the City Council talked about it and ~ kind of got a subco~v, ittee to talk about it and Bill and I and Don talked about it with the Arboret~ experts and then it went to Public Safety and then it went to Planning Co~v, ission and then it went back to HRA. We never saw it again. I have no idea what it is sitting at right now. Maybe I don't r~ to care ~t people are telling m.e about downtown and everything else like that and that's where I'm saying that I'm not interested in having t_hat excuse to say, I don't know, you know. Councilman Johnson: That's why I'd like to have at least 2 m~6eMs of the Council on there to where they're reporting back to ~m. Councilman Workman: I'm saying Jay though that all m~bers of the City Council should be accountable. Not just me or you. Councilman Johnson: Well I don't have to worry about it because nobody's term expires before my term on the HRA. Co~.~cilm~n Boyt: Mr. Mayor? Having watched the HRA, City Council trade off responsibility for things for 3 years, I think the time is right. The public is confused. I don't think we do a good job of co~vLunicating to them,. I don't know that very many of th~., care who's responsible so m~ch as they see it and they either like it or they don't like it and then they start looking around for so~body. Then it's been me and it will probably continue to be. I think all of ~ would agree that there's a real advantage in having as m~ny people as ~ 26 .City O~mcil Meeting - February 26~ 1990 can involved in city goverr~t. This is one chance to get ~ involved. ~ drawback is as Jay said, maybe we do vote on these things but when you've got everybody getting a vote in, there's nobody responsible. I agree that the issue's so cc~,plicated. It's like is it going to he the apartment building? Is it the hotel we're going to talk about here in a few minutes? If we can't get so~ clear lines of responsibilty drawn up, I see no other alternative than the Co,~cil taking the job because that elL~nates any questions about who's responsible. I think if we can get that drawn up then the ismle, well sc~where along the lines we've got to get m~re public input into what's happening downtown. And on the one hand Tc~ was talking and I agree with him that we need responsibility. On the other hand, I think the way the HRA has gotten ~elves into trouble is by. being political and I think they've ~ very political. I don't ~ to get into specifics but I'm not sure we correct that problem. We bec~e accountable but by. the very. nature of it, it's awfully hard for L~ to not be political. Co,~cilwc~an Dim]er: I guess I'd like to cc~nt on that and that is, ~s. It mdght be political but I know that all of us here get voted in by. the public, not by. the developers m~)stly or by., you understand what I'm saying? Councilman Boyt: Yes. C~.~cilw~an Dim]er: So yeah, we ~ant to be accountable to the people that vote us in. If that's what you call political, that's the way it should be. I find that I get calls, people say I don't like the way this turned out and that turned out and I find myself having to say, you know I know that we looked at that but I can' t r~~er exactly what we decided or who ~ade the final decision. I j~mt don't like to do that and I point at th~% and they point at us and we point at Public Safety and nothing ever gets resolved and I think that's one way that we can say the buck steps here. We're responsible and we're also, we' re responsible because when we want those people to vote again and we ~nt ~, to vote for us, we can say here's the decisions I made. Council~an Johnson: One of those was appointing the m~ers to the HPA. Councilwoman Dimmer: Only the ones that c~me up that are expired. Right now I've only had say in 1. ~o~cil~an Boyt: Well there was, I ~ to nit pick that. Mayor C~,tel: That's in%aterial. I think the accountability, portion is sc~thing that we really have to look at. I've had several people approach me on this and indicate their concerns. Sure, fr~ a political standpoint you can say well yeah. I really didn't care one way or the other. I shouldn't say care one way or the other. We really didn't make that decision. The HRA did. That's an easy way to push things off. I think if you're going to be consistent, as we have within this Cbuncil, to take reign as to what's happening within the city, I think that that portion of the H~A should probably go back to the City. Council. Not that I have any ill feelings towards any of those people on the HRA. I appreciate all the tt~e that they did put in and they. do work hard at it and I thank them for it but .vet it comes back to the question, who is responsible for making those decisions. I don't think the right people are there to accept that responsibility.. So I guess that's my basic co~nt. 27 City Councll Meeting - Febr[mry 26, 1990 Council~n Johnson: My point that I was trying to F~ke is the HRA is a focused group. Tney focus only on redevelo~nt. ~ae ~11 part. They can put all their energy into that. We're a very diverse group. We have to look at Dogwood Lane and downtown and Sk,.u~k Hollow and everyplace else which dillutes our effectiveness and our abilities. We need good strong c(ar~,issions and other people to help us with these decisions. The HRA is where that starts getting away becuase that's the one body that's allowed to F~ke their own decisions. Mayor Ch~,iel: Right. Counciln-mn Boyt: Taey've got Fare F~)ney than we do too. Councilw~mmn Dimler: That way we could control the tax money, that's right. And as far as, I appreciate Jay's concerns about being on too F~ny cc~;issions and too F~ny F~=etings but I wonder if Roger could address how Councils that are also operate as the HRA, how they do that. I've seen where they just at the saF~ ~=eting will say okay now we convene as the ditch board or whatever, you know. Could w~ not do that? Roger K~utson: I've worked with lots of groups but not the ditch boards. You spelled it out. Typically they meet in the sa~ evening. Like if you ~=et at 7:30, it'd start at 6:30 but that depends upon the load of work... Co~cil~mn Johnson: The City of Minneapolis is their own HRA. The Minneapolis City Council. Of course their staff doesn't like that a whole lot but that's a different story. Council~mn Boyt: They're paid $18,000.00 a year too. Mayor Ch~,iel: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this portion of it? Clayton Johnson: I didn't even know this w~s on tonight to be discussed but I think you might be interested because I've spent a lot of ti~ in the last 3 1/2 years. Mayor C~m'del: ~st please state your na~e and address. Clayton Johnson: Clayton Johnson with the Bloc~erg Cc~panies. I've spent a lot of ti~ this last 3 1/2 years in the downtown redevelo~nt effort and I think that several of the co~nts are very get, ne. One is that we, you know and ~-~st of those efforts are behind us so I don't think that I have any selfish interest here but I think it takes a tr~ndous amount of ti~e and the HRA has put in a tr~ndous ~)%mt of time and we needed t_heir attention. I can't i~glne co,ting into a ~eting like tonight and cc~,peting on the agenda w-lth the concerns that we've gone through on the HRA. Now that's one point. The second point is that there is a frustration on our part of the lack of coordination. It's very i~ortant to have 2 council F~a~ers or whatever on the HRA because we don't like to have to tell the story 3 and 4 ti~es but I guess I would take that a step further. I would say that it would be ec~lly i~oortant to have the Planning O0~,ission represented on the HRA because when we take these issues to the Planning Cc~,ission, we're starting all over again. There's no continuity. I think you cc~e back, I ~an I understand the thing about accountability and I understand the co~nts that you get fro~ the public but I think you do have 28 City Oouncil Meeting - February 26, 1990 that final responsibility when it comes to funding these projects. Number one. ~ two, I think you're here to set policy.. You can't possibly run everything and that would be the concern that I would have. Particularly in the am~)unt of time and the amount of effort that w~'ve spent in these last 3 years. I think going forward maybe it's a totally different issue beca~me the size of the projects and the frequency, of the projects is going to greatly dimHnish. Okay? Thank you. Councilw~r~n Dimler: Mr. Mayor, could I respond? Mayor Chv, iel: Yeah. Councilwoman Dimler: I think one of the things that has ~ frustrating to me is that you know Mr. Johnson indicated that we are responsible-for spending the dollars and that's exactly one of the things that does frustrate me is that I don't have any say in how that money, is spent. Never once have we ~ asked do we ~mnt this project. We have 'just been told this is the project that has been approved by the HRA and we're just asked to review the plans and ~ake cc~nts onto the plans. We have no say in which project gets in and which project gets out and that is one of my major concerns is that we do pick projects that can be financially successful so the taxpayer does not e~d up sitting here having to carry the ball when the business goes broke. They. can't make it because the project that was chosen was not feasible. Councilman Boyt: I can't think of a project that we haven't voted on though that we couldn't have stopped. Can you think of anything that Council could not have stopped? Co~ncil~an Johnson: We could have required brick roof on the apartments if we wanted to stop the apartments. We could stop ~ at the site plan. C~u~cilw~an Dim]er: I've never heard the Council say I don't ~mnt this project. It's always we've considered what they've brought before us. Mayor Ch~,iel: I don't think the Council's opposed. Councilw0~an Didier: The HRA makes the decision as to which projects are accep~. Councilman Boyt: Can you think of anything in the downtown that we didn't vote on? Councilwoman Dimler: Did you see all the applicants for Market Square or Crossroads? Mayor Ch~,iel: A few things w~re before our tim~ though. Councilw(m~an Dim]er: They were all already chosen and we were just asked to review the site plan. That's it and that type of thing but wa were not, we had no say in who got into those projects. The HRA did that. Councilman Boyt: I re~av~er sc~ of us sitting in on that meeting that night with the HRA but we could have stopped it. We have the veto power over most of what they do. 29 City Council Meeting - February 261 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: I've never seen it exercised. Councilman Johnson: It hasn' t been necessary. Councilman Bo.vt: It hasn't been for lack of trying by. some of ~ to get so~ of this stuff killed but I'm just saying, when it co~s to responsibility, I think it rests right here. Mayor Ch~Liel: Sure it does. Council,.an Boyt: Because we do have that opportunity. Councilwc~an Dim]er: Well if I have the responsibility, I'd like to have a say in which projects go. CounciL-an Boyt: I don't disagree with that. Councilman Johnson: I'll support you for a F~er of the HRA. Councilwoman Dimler: And I'll support you. And you and you. Mayor Ch~Liel: Any other further discussion? What position? Would you like to cc~ ~ to the microphone please? Mike Klingelhutz: Mr. Mayor, Council people. I wrote Mr. Chmiel a letter addressing my concerns and do you think I should read it? CounciL"an Boyt: We all got a copy.. Mike Klingelhutz: In addition to that, to FLy letter, if you look around you and look at the world today, people don't want the co~;unist central cc~,ittee Faking their decisions for them. They want de~Locratically elected officials. Look at Nicaragua, East Europe. They're more co~d~ortable having elected officials ~-aking decisions. I'm not trying to say that the HRA is co~m~ist or an.vthing like that. Co~mcilwo~an Dimler: ~nat's what it sounded like. Mayor Chmiel: No, we understand. We have your letter Mike. Thank you. Frank Kurvers: My na~.~ is Frank Ku~vers and I have a little bit to say about what I see happening here in our co~,unity. I guess I think that the residents and the people of this city deserve better than what I see at the present time as far as construction of buildings. When you've got an HRA, you've got the money. You're taking it all away from the taxpayers. I think you should give th~., sc~thing in return that's lasting. Brick and mortar. Not just wood construction and then pile the~, all in one big pile. I think you need open space just like the Planning Co~ission wants. The Park and Rec wants. We want all those things and I think and I support the Council taking over the HRA. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Anyone else? This is the kind of in,it we like to have? 30 City Oouncil Meeting - February 26~ 1990 Councilman Johnson: Whexe is this goi~3 to go? Council~mn Boyt: Yeah, where are we going with this? Somebody make a motion. Councilm~n Workman: Can we meke a m~tion? Mayor Chv, iel: TO m~ve in a direction. Councilm~n Workm~n: I m~an it was on the Council presentations. Do I ~ to do anything special now that we've brought it back, do I r~ to do anything special? Don Ashworth: Yes. It's my error that the its~ did not get published on the regular agenda again. I anticipated that the attorney's office would take m~)re time than literally a one ~.~ck pexiod of time to do his research so it ~s not lm~lished. The Council can still act. You can overturn your own rules by basically a four-fifths vote. If I'm hearing the Council though, or at least our legal counsel, you're not really in a position to totally eliminate the HRA. You do have an appointment that is c(~,ing up in May. C~ainman Ehitehill's appointment if I r~e~er correctly is up for reappointm~nt within the next 30 to 60 day timeframe so that o~e will be co~.ing hack to you. And ~vou could ask for resignations fr(~, the HRA basically infon%im9 them of the discussion that occ~%rred here this evening. Currently the Council does act as the governing board for 2 out of 3 districts. You do have 3 districts and 2 of those are econ(~v, ic develolmnent districts and City Council, not the HRA, is the sole decision retaking group associated with those other two districts so when we approached Hennepin County, that ~s solely City Council. Never ~a~nt to HRA. When we've talked about M2Glynn, it's ~ solely City Council, not HRA. If I hear s(~ve of the concerns, it deals with the HRA's decision as to who to select for developer for the downtown. Who to select as a developer on 79th Street and those are roles that are set over to the HRA. I think that in that process, mmybe if staff would have perceived that the Council wanted to take a more active role, we could have established work sessions wherein ~vour input %~s put into that process. I guess in retrospect I'm tryir~3 to think of how we might have better coordinated the ~rk of the Council and the HRA in each of those areas. Council~n Johnson: If the Council ~ants the input, they're th~ m~)st informed citizens in this city. They know about every _m~cting and everything that's going on. They can lmlt their input. Councilw~v~n Dimler: Okay, could I make a co~nt to that? I didn't know until tonight, and I've been on the Council for over a ~v~ar, that Council ~s in charge of 2 out of the 3 districts as you just indicated. Why wasn't I infon~ed of that when we came on the Council? Why is there not a better co~nunication systa,, that says to the Council m~sers, this and this and this and this is what you're responsible for? I had no idea. No idea. So ~u're saying to me that ~Glynn was approved, that was a solely Council made decision? Don Ashworth: The Council ~as the body that basically drew up the development plan for that. Adopted it and since that point in time im(ol~%ented it. I do not believe that Council~o~..~n Dimler ~as on the Council at the point in time that those decisions were m~de by the City Council so for example, the establ is~ent... 31 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 Councilw~van Dim]er: I understand that but I would have liked to have been informed as to here's what you're taking over. Here's what you're responsible for. Councilm~n Workman: Don, you and I have talked a little bit about it and the role of the HRA is becc~,ing more and more a diminished role. I certainly do not find my duties with the HRA to be so enc~xnbering or all encore, passing that I have a problem. Well, I take that back, as Todd Gerhardt would tell you because the F~eting gets switched aro~znd and then I have other things going on planned but really the packet is not that large. It's really not that big of a deal. Councils~n Johnson: It used to go to 11:00 at night. Councilman Workm. an: Yeah, I understand wanting to keep as F~ny people as possible involved. I just feel that it's time that the City and the Council take it upon th~tselves. We know most of these details anyway. Let's take all of the responsibility and take the rest and clean ~%~ the rest to...~nat people think that they smell a rat sc~etimes, whether they do or not. It might be comting from a neighboring cctv, unity. But you know, there's a perception when you have and you can tell people hey, you know I'm a city councilmember and geez, ve got a budget of 5 1/2 million. Wow. You know. I think it just about q%u~druples when you throw the HRA in there or whatever it is and so it is a very, very big responsibility and not one to be taken lightly and I certianly don't and I've just heard it enough times that that's why I pitched the proposal that w~ take the co~,plete responsibility frc~, here on out with what's going, om and I think we can accc~plish the same things and do the same things without much probl~,. If we tack th~, onto our regular co[u~cil ~etings, I don't see that as being... Councilw(~..an Dimler: A problem. Councilman Johnson: There's no urgency either so why don't we move this to next Council F~eting. Get it published in the newspaper and the citizens can be infonved of this discussion we're having rather than just a few people be informed of this discussion so that we might be able to garner ~)st citizen in,mit. Was the HRA infon~d that this disc, lssion was on the agenda today? I don't see any of their representatives here saying one way or another. I think it's unfair for ~m to ~ake a decision tonight without it being placed on the, published in the newspaper. Co~cilwcm~n Dim]er: I do want to say that I heard T(~, clearly state twice that he wanted it to be on the regular agenda after he made a council presentation and twice it was not published on the reg,~lar agenda. Councilm~n Johnson: Well there's a good reason for that that Don had in there was when the regular agenda gets published, which is what? ~ne Monday before? Mayor Ch~,iel: The Friday before. Councilman Johnson: So it was over a w~ek ago on Friday when that had to go to the newspapers to get ~mfolished. At that time he didn't think that the attorney was going to be ready for it so it didn't get on the agenda because he could not put it on the agenda and then co~e back and say well we're going to drop it off 32 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 the agenda because w~ don't think it's ready. Now that wouldn't be responsible on his part to do that either. Councilw~an Dimler: Perhaps but we could have ~bled it at that point you know. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, if people came in for it and then we table it. That's not good either. Frank Eurvers: I have one question. I don't know if it's real pertinent but I think it is pertinent when you talk about econ~cs and money. As far as the sac charges and buying down certain things, when a business comes in here,-do you people know that that's going on? Co~il~an Johnson: Yes. Frank ~urvers: Do you know exactly how much F~ney is used and everything? Councilman Boyt: Eventually. Frank E~rvers: For a business? - Mayor Ch~,iel: It takes tiFe but scr, etimes it's done after the fact. Councilman Johnson: We know the estimates. Frank K~rve~'s: Okay, you know the est]mates but are you part of the negotiation of doing that? council~an Boyt: No. Frank Ektrvers: i~at' s a F,tstake. That' s a real mistake. councilwoman Dimler: That's what I was try. lng to get at. Frank Enrve~s: Real mistake. CounciLman Johnson: I F~ve we table this until the next council meeting so it can be adec~mtely published. Oo~F~ilw~an Dim]er: But do [alt it on the next council agenda. Mayor Ch~iel: Also I think we should have sc~e indication in the paper as w~ll notifying the l~iblic of the fact... Councilwoman Dimler: It would be a public hearing? Mayor Chniel: No, I don't think it has to be a public hearing but an informational kind of ite~, for the public. Don Ashworth: I F~ight suggest that we have sc~ form of a worksession with the HRA to allow the council and HRA to discuss s~%e of these issues. In fact I think that we're at a junct~=e in terms of a couple of things are happening. One, at the legislature where if the Amber-Beichcod amend~mt is in fact 33 City Council Meeting - February 261 1990 approved, this entire discussion is going to really F~an nothing because they're going to insert a new board that will represent the school representatived, county and city that basically will sit over top 'of City Council. If HRA, City Council and the new board basically will make all decisions associated with HRA. Councilw~ven Dimler: Can't the City Council still be this HRA and then have that board? Don Ashworth: Tnis bill would set one county representative. One school representative. One city and if you wanted to delegate a m~er from, the HRA or if you w~nted one from, the City Council, that would be your perogative. Mayor Ch~.,iel: I think Ursula's question was if the City Council being the City Council and the City Council also being the HRA. Councilman Johnson: It still would be possible. Councilw0~n Dimler: Sure. We could still do what we're planning to do and have this new board above us. Don Ashworth: Oh. Yes. We're also at a juncture with the HRA in terms of kind of reviewing a number of the projects and again recognizing that the legislature is in the process of acting, again a beautiful ti~ to have a work session. Talk about things s~h as the Redi-Mix facility. Som~ of the other develo~x%ents that are occurring and the potential for where the Council is coming from, and should the City Council take over those functions or should they stay with HRA or however you want to proceed in that direction. Mayor Chv, iel: Let's get this then on the next agenda. Councilwomen Dim]er: If you have that work session I'd just like to say have it after the 8th of March. Councilmen Workmen: I guess the one quick convent about a work session. I don't know that it's going to accomplish where I'm at and where I feel about this in that I'm operating basically on a very real public perception here. I don't think a work session's going to take care of that. That's the accountability perception. We can have all the work sessions w~ ~nt and that's not going to take care of that so it's going to change my mind on that. That particular issue. I don't m~an to step on toes or grab power. Mayor Chv, iel: Let's get this on the March 12th agenda for discussion. move onto the next ite~, of business. Let' s REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SHED, 620 FOXHILL DRIVE, JAMES MCALLISTER. Mayor Chmiel: Willard, would you like to com, e up here and just indicate what the conclusions w~re reached on item, 2 which is a rear yard setback variance request for construction of a shed at 620 Foxhill Drive, James ~kAllister. Willard Johnson: We held over, he indicated he probably could buy approximately 2 foot from, his neighbor so we tabled it and gave him a 90 day extension to, he 34 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 can pursue to buy the 2 foot of property, fine. If not, then he has to before the board again and w~' 11 Fake a decision at that time. We ~Duld hope he can buy 2 feet. Mayor Ch, del: So the action for us to do is just table this? Willard Johnson: Just table any action until w~ get a response within 90 days. Mayor ~,iel: Good. Thank you. Councilwoman Dim]er m~ved, Councilman Workman seconded to *able the rear yard setback variance request for Js~es McAllister at 620 Foxhill Drive. All voted in favor and the m~)tion carried. VARIANCE EXTENSION REQUW-gT, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOt~_~"~7~D, JAMES JESSUP. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the applicant requested an extension because of pollution fr(~ a leaking gasoline tank apparently fr~m an adjoining property that's preventing him frc~, building. He wanted an extension that was valid for a year past the date the PCA says the site's cleaned up. The Board was uncc~,fortable with that since we had no idea when that was going to occur and agreed to a 1 y~ar extension with the possibility of further extensions if the probl~,'s not resolved in the next 12 months. Mayor Chv~iel: Okay, any discussion? Councilman Boyt: I know you just m~mtioned this but we do have to modify, the variance right? Didn't you say in here it should be clear that the gas tank is not a confozming use? Paul Krauss: Ch, I need to clarify that. Councilman Johnson: It's not on his property.. Paul Krauss: Right. When I had heard about this probl~v. I had heard about the leaking gas tank and it turns out it's on a neighboring property. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Got it. Fine. Councilman Boyt m~ved, Councilman Johnson seconded the variance extension rec~st for Jam~s Jessup at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: ~hat were we voting Mayor C2~,iel: E~actly what Paul said. Councilman Boyt: An extension. Councilman Johnson: Ch. It was passed by. the Board of ~djustments and Appeals unanim~t~ly. Did we need to vote too? 35 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 Councilwom~n Dimmer: Yes~ Councilmmn Boyt: We did or didn't? Paul Krauss: You wouldn't have ~ed to acted. It wasn't appealed and the board approved it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we' 11 withdraw it. Councilman Johnson: Well it doesn't m~tter. Mayor Chr.,iel: It's alright. We like to do it twice. REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR COUNTRY HOSPITALITY SUITES, DAVE HE~94INGER, D.W. HUTT CONSTRUCTION. Paul Kra~ms: As the City Council is aware, the developers for Hospitality Suites proposed sc~e changes to the site plan that staff felt were sufficiently substantial that it took the proposal back to the City Council for action last December. The Council detenv, ined that the revised roof line and roofing ~'mterials were acceptable but insisted that a canopy over the mmin entrance he provided and in addition indicated that at that point in time you were unwilling to accept the shortening up of the building by approximately 12 feet which had been proposed. You did however indicate that if any more changes were proposed, since the project ~_~v~d to be in s(xnething of a state of flux, or if any of those decisions warranted further consideration, that the applicant could go back to the Planning Cc~v, ission through channels for an av~x~m.~nt site plan. And that is in fact the case, an amended site plan is being req~lested. Again, the applicant is continuing to request approval to delete a 12 foot section of the building. A satisfactory canopy design was also presented to the Planning ~,ission contingent ~%~on some issues that have to be resolved between the applicant and the City Engineer. Staff raised issues regarding preservation of a landscaped courtyard to the east of the building and a related issue providing minim~ building separation to m.~et building code requirav~nts. Staff is recc~_nding approval of the revised plans and that reco~v~ndation has been supported by the Planning C(m~,ission. Staff is continuing to reco~vend approval of the am, ended site plan. We believe it's consistent with the intent of the original approval and resolves issues that have been raised. As to the deletion of the 12 feet of the building, we really did feel it's not going to be visible. Unless you know where to look, you won't know that that section of building's going to be absent. It's not taken out of the residential room.~ itself. It's taken out of the lobby/pool area and we really don't think it's going to be visible or disruptive to the architecture of the building. As I eluded to earlier, there's still a r~ining concern concerning the drive under canopy. We're recommending that condition 4 he corrected to read the final canopy plans be approved by the City Engineer contingent upon the applicants demonstrating that there is sufficient room, to F~n[~ver buses. We'd also like to add a 5th condition if we could to the effect that all other conditions of the original approval r~in in effect. We neglected to do that earlier ass[~,ing that it was the case but it doesn't hurt to state it. Councilwc~n Dimler: Is there anyone that would like to address this? 36 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 Council~'an Boyt: I have a question. It might help and might shorten things up too. My. c~.~stion is where did the 12 feet go? I know what it came off of but where did it go? David Hs~%inger: My. na~e is David H~,inger. I represent D.W. }{itt Cons~tltants. Along with me are Clayton Johnson and John Rice who represent Blo(~erg C~nies and Mr. Bl(x~erg who is 1/4 owner of the Country Hospitality. Suites. I represent the other owners. I guess Mr. Boyt, why. don't you clarify, your question to me first. ~Tat do you m~an, where did the other 12 feet go? Co,~cil~an Boyt: I'm gathering that the building is shorter by. 12 feet so ~b~_re did the 12 feet go? Where is it showing up on the property, because when I see the distance between yo,~ ~ilding and the existing buildings, it doesn't see~, to be 12 feet wider there so I ask where did the 12 feet go? David Hs~,inger: Well the 12 feet was taken off the east side of the lobby. Councilman Boyt: I know on the building. I mean on the lot. Where did the 12 feet show up? Do you [u~derstand what I'm looking for? We took 12 feet out of the building. It was on the main floor so I expect that 12 feet to show up s(~place outside. No? David H~,,inger: No. It's a larger grassy area between Blo~rg's property line and the edge of the motel at the courtyard. Councilman Boyt: Well but the co~%rtyard was, wasn't it 25 feet and then it got smaller when we took the 12 feet off? Paul Krauss: If I could respond to that Councilman Boyt. ~he courtyard that you originally reviewed was a landscaped illustration on a site plan. The platting cafe along after the fact and kind of chopped off where that courtyard was ~%~posed to be. Staff had a concern when that was done in that w~ wanted it protected but the size of the courtyard really didn't changed. What changed is the property, line if that helps to resolve the confusion or I don't know if I added mare. We ~mnt to rake sure that wa have the proper building separation and that we have a sufficiently large courtyard r~aining. When you first reviewed that there was no property line to gauge it against. It was just a site plan that was suh%it~ to ~u. Councilman Boyt: So you're saying that ~ahen we ware first measuring, we w~re measuring this property, and the adjoining property, and counted it all as one piece? Pa[il Krauss: Yes. Councilman Boyt: And the courtyard ~s 25 feet then? Paul Krauss: Right. Councilman Boyt: And now the courtyard is 36 feet? David H~v~inger: 25 feet. 37 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 Mayor Chniel: No, it's 25 to 30 feet. It ~as approved on the plan as 30 feet. CouncilmAn Johnson: The 25 feet, is that on the south side or is that on the east side? There's 2 sides to this courtyard. David Ha~ninger: On the east side. council,'mn Boyt: Now that's the side ~ took the pool off of right? Part of the pool. David He~.~tinger: Right. CouncilmAn Johnson: There's 37 feet between those 2 buildings on this drawing. Paul Krauss: That's right now but the building that's east of the hotel is being torn down. And what ~'re trying to protect is that there's a 25 foot wide courtyard into the future as that property is redeveloped. CouncilmAn Johnson: Right now there's only 16 foot 8 to the property line? Paul Krauss: Right. David Her~,inger: Tnat's right. CouncilmAn Johnson: Or is that a sewer line or sc~,ething? David He~,inger: Tnat's the property line. CouncilmAn Johnson: So you need covenants into the next person's property. Paul Krauss: He needs to protect that portion across the line, yes. CouncilmAn Johnson: So they can build another building later on at 25 feet over, right up against the easement? Paul Kra[~s: We expect they, to, yes. David H~r~inger: And that ~ould meet the setback requirem~_nts for your code. Co~bncilm~n Boyt: So what you're telling me is that with the pool extension, you can't meet the setback? David Hs~v, inger: No, that's not what I'm telling you at all. We could m~et the setbacks and w~did m~et the setbacks. CounciLmmn Boyt: But ~e've got this 25 feet which was required but then w~ don't have it. We only have 12 feet. Paul Kra[ms: %he 25 feet Counci]_mmn Boyt was not a setback that was required. It's in the CBD district and there were no setbacks implied. When the plat came through last November, we alerted the developer to the fact that there's going to be a proble~t beca~me you had illustrated a landscape area and fire access and stuff that is now on the adjoining property because of where you elected to put the property line. So it's kind of a self mmde problev, and the way to fix it 38 City Co~cil Meeting - February. 261 1990 was to preserve it through an easement2 Councilm~n Boyt: So w~ have 0 setback in the sidelot? Paul Kra~ms: Theoretically you could but again, we have these el~%ents on the site plan that we ~nted to preserve and we also had building and fire code issues. The fire exits for the pool w~uld actually have required that you cross over onto the adjoining property to exit that building. Councilman Johnson: So we're trying to get the eas~v~mts to make sure that doesn't happen? Paul Krauss: That it's going to be allo~d to be protec~_=d into the future. Councilman Johnson: The owner on the east is also part owner of this? Paul Krauss: At this point in ti~. Co, mcilman Johnson: At this point in time so it sho[tld be fairly easy. to get that easement. Paul Kratms: Well it's t~lrned out to be rather complicated with we're all ~orking together. Councilman Johnson: Did you get sc~e lawyers involved or something? Paul Krauss: Two of tbs,,, yes. Councilman Boyt: The issue for F~ is we're bouncing this around a little bit up here but the issue for ~ is not whe~ or not you can shorten your building ~. You've gone through the necessary procedure. You w~nt to Planning Cc~ission. Before I didn't like it because you w~re cutting all those proced[%res out and you were c(~,ing to us and saying make it s%aller and I think sc~ of [m had just sort of had enough of this changing everything right here at the last F~nute. Well, you stopped. You w~nt through the procedures so I'm inclined to say make your building any. size you want as long as you go through the procedures. My. probl~, is just, I'm trying to figure out, as I keep saying, where did all this land go that ~s there and wasn't there and ~a.~oe that's where the lawyer has to get involved but I still don't understand. Roger Knutson: Do you have more green space now? Paul Krauss: No, you won't have any more green space. ~at it affects is the kmlilding that Bloc~berg Cc~.,panies w~uld be allo~ed to build in the future. The 12 feet that's being r~v~ved frc~, this building is allowing that building to be 12 feet larger. That space inbet~-----n is fixed. Councilman Workman: This building is 12 feet shorter? Paul Krauss: The hotel is proposed to be 12 feet shorter, yes. Councilman Workman: In the pool area? Paul Kratms: Yes. 39 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 David He~ninger: Can I go a step further here? Maybe I can answer your question. When we moved that building back 12 feet away from the property line, they could set their building right on the property line. Then we w~uld have a conflict with the UBC Code as far as our setback fr~m our building to their building. So by Faintaining an eas~,ent of 25 feet inbetween the buildings, we had the proper setbacks to ~.~et the Code as far as the building fire ratings w~uld be and it protects the City in that the City. is na~d in the eas~nt also so that nobody can incringe in that area while it's approved. CouncilHan Boyt: So what you're telling Fa is you couldn't build the building as you planned to build it because there wasn't enough room? David Hs~,inger: No. That has nothing to do with it. Paul Krauss: Well there's an el~nt of truth to that. Because of where the property line was placed, we could not allow this building to be constructed ~mless w~ protected an easement on the adjoining property sufficient to provide a minim~?, building separation of 25 feet. Councilman Boyt: I think ~'re saying the same thing. David H~r~,inger: Okay, yes. Co,lncil~an Boyt: ~nat' s all I had. Thanks. Council~an Work~an: I thought this was because the franchise co~,~y had a probl~t with the big pool area. David H~.tinger: Okay, that's why we took the 12 feet off. That's true. That's why we took the 12 feet off. We're not disim~ting that. The only thing that came up is we wanted to establish a protected court.yard area and also the City asked that of us and so we ca~ back with the mutual agree~t that on a 25 foot, because that ~t the Code and that was originally what the blueprints were showing was a 25 foot courtyard between the properties. Councilw(~an Dimler: Do we have any idea .vet what that future building will be that's going to be 127 Did you want to say sc~thing? That building that's going to be bigger as a result. ~hat is that going to be? I guess I really w~uld like to know, Faking the pool ~aller is for a worth while cause. David H~;inger: Okay. We Fade the pool room ~aller to F~et our franchisees request. Also to F~3et the criteria that w~ weren't manning the pool on a 24 hour basis with staff. That it was not totally in view all the time. Tnat's why we took the 12 feet off. Taking the 12 feet off the hotel has nothing to do with any other building being built next to it or anything else. Tnere's no correlation there whatsoever. Mayor Ch~.iel: I have a specific question relating to the, once you get the buildings pea, it. Are you aware of the letter or F~orandum that was written by Steve Kirck~an, our building official, regarding the canopy structure and the bus routing as it relates to the canopy, structure that has been resolved to the city satisfaction? Saying that in sc~ areas it wasn't quite high enough. That you'd have to cc~ly with those particular rec~ir~,ents. Have you seen that 40 City. OoL~cil Meeting - February 26~ 1990 particular m~m~)randum? David Her~.inger: No I haven' t. The only thing I can state to that is the architect shows the 13'6" elevation but I have not ~ that particular m~av~>randL~v, at this time. Mayor Chvdel: Okay. I think ~hat I'd like to make sure is that the owner and the architect both get copies of this so they know what our building officials are thinking. David Hem~inger: Okay, fine. Gary Warren: If I could take a minute, I'd like to just to praise the Council I ~ss in the spirit of last minute changes. I think the bus routing and such is an important ele~nt here. We've been %~>rking with the developer trying to get it defined and we still need to get sc~e further resolution but I did ~ant to show you s~e inpacts on the curb cut and the routing that I think Council. should be aware of as far as the use of the facility. ~nis floor plan is in your packet but don't try looking for it. The packet is thick enough... · basically it sho~ed the original concept that we ~ been working from with the developer as far as this being the entrance~y and a canopy, area and you'll note there's no m~dian support here proposed in the canopy, at this time. Further evaluations by the developer and he can speak to I guess the rationale and the difficulties that they ran into in try. lng to accoe~,odate that necessitated from their perspective the inclusion of this median support area in here for the canopy, strucb%re. Basically what that does is segregates actual, the driver' s perception here into a 2 lane configuration. Each of these lanes being approximately 14 feet wide and the median being 4 feet wide. An enlargement of that area, with color. We asked Btam, who's designing the site perimeter efforts here, to take a look at 45 foot turning t~%plets for a t.vpical bus and again we ~ to get further definition from the developer on the anticipated magnitude of the buses and such but basically applying templets to this, a westbour~ bus can enter the site along this green corridor. These are the wheel lines basically and make a delivery, at the front of the Country. Suites at this location and then can proceed to either make an eastbound or westbound movement. There's no probl~ with the westbound buses entering. The problem, that we've been looking at has been the eastbound bus which is the blue line here because he has to make a tight hook into this lane of traffic. Again, here's the median. Makes his drop here. Cannot negotiate this radius to get back out through this access. As to continue then to exit the site by. proceeding through this, the parking area basically. I'll go back to this one. We basically proceed through this wy to get out. Now depending on the magnitude of the buses and n~ers and m~h, that may not be a problem,. Brief conversation that Clayton and I have had, they're not that concerned but there are impacts that we wanted to make you a~are of. One is that in order to make these access mov~nts, these areas in yellow which are existing radius' that were built as a part of the Phase I of the downtown, ~ to be modified to get the 36 foot curb c~lt out here and provide a 30 foot radius on these curbs so that these mov~nts can be negotiated. You can see the conflict points in here. Similarly, there's a potential for at least one parking space to be deleted from this area. This o~e I think could be saved but in order sc~e buffer from this support extension on the canopy., that will probably go and we can figure that appropriately to get the radius'. And then we haven't had an opportunity to put the t~v~>lets on on this outlot segment but I think also these two different areas in yellow here 41 City Council Meeting - February 261 1990 may need to be modified because, just an eyeball look at ths~, w~uld make this mov~_nt diffic~%lt with the centerline along here for a bus to negotiate without clipping off these corners. So those are impacts to the site plan. We're interested, schedules of developers and mine haven't allowed ~ to get together to finally resolve the magnitude of the buses but it w~s, I think the additional bue deliveries to the site was s~v~thing that was added frc~, the original concept as well so we then applied or had BRW p~lt the temglets on here to get that highlighted. Modifications that w~uld be done to these existing radius', except with the, I guess inclined in the City's public im~orov~v~nt project or could be included and then assessed back to the property as we are intending for the other side...I think it's important to understand we're bringing buses into a congested area. ~nere are sc~ modifications that I think are necessary to accom~,odate that. Part of it is dictated by the fact that this median is being placed here to support the canopy structure which definitely segregates into travel lanes. If that median weren't there, the bus frc~, the westbound could enter the site, or I'm sorry eastbo~nd, and pull ~.~ against this c~%rb line to drop and then could make the mov~_nt out but I 'm not I guess upset about the fact that the median is there. I think it's m~re knowing that buses probably will be leaving the site through the parking areas down to basically the how'ling alley entrance area which Fay necessitate sc~ changes also. Councilman Johnson: Gary, are you assuming buses will stay to the right of that m~dian? I've ridden in a lot of buses and bus drivers, sc~ of th~ tend to believe they own the road. Whichever lane they want to be in. Gary Warren: Are you talking about here? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. They may just pull up to that front door and the left side of that m~dian anyway. Gary Warren: They may but I think they're going to have a very difficult time trying to m~ke this cut across that center island. I'm not going to argue with a bus anymore than you w~uld. Councilman Workman: Gary, are you saying to scrap it? Scrap the canopy? Gary Warren: No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just trying to, as a part of this process because of the way it's c(x~e together, to say w~ have a use here that was not part of the original understandings that I know for the site as far as buses. We do want to get defined from, the developer the intentions. How m~ny buses? How often? Mayor Ch~,iel: Yeah, that' s my question. Gary Warren: We think they can be accor~v, odated in here but obviously if you bring 10 buses...unless he chose to do a zig zag routine but I would imagine that these are going to be pretty popular parking spots with their access here so typically you could figure that they're going to be full. But he cannot make a 45 foot... Councilm~n Workmmn: You're assuming that he's going to hug that inside corner just as you said he might do that at the front door. 42 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Gary. Warren: If he tries to do this, then he w~uld have a bette~ chance of making it. It's still a tight call. Councilman Workman: Or if you went My wide to the w~st. Oaning out of there. You said he could make it wide here. I'm just talking about being wide... Mayor Ch,~[el: Gary I guess I still have a concer. How many buses are we talking about? Gary Warren: I don't know... David H~r~,inger: I don't have that answer for you tonight Mr. Mayor. Clayton Johnson: I can speak frc~, experi~ at the Dinner Theatre. Councilman Johnson: It's not going to be 10 a day. Clayton Johnson: The m~xim~, n~_r of buses at the Dinner Theatre w~uld be on a Wednesday. The hotel w~uld love to ~ 1 or 2 of those but we've revie~sd Gary's plan and the only concern w~ have is that the buses be able to exit out Market Blvd.. That's a very acceptable plan. If there are any curb cuts that r~ to be m~dified or any obviously, that would be our expense but that exit method would be acceptable. Councilman Boyt: ~hile you're up there Clayton, mmybe ~w:~u can tell us about: any financial assistance the City is contributing to this project. Are we doing an=thing? Clayton Johnson: Nothing other than the typical special asses~nt write down that all of the projects in the tax increment district have ~ eligible for. Mayor Ch~,iel: I'd still like to get some ~rs on those buses as to how many you think you Fright have even thot~3h Clayton has indicated that he'd more than welc(~ 1 or 2. I think where I see it cc~ing fr~m, I don't expect to see 10 ~_s there. Each bus holds 42? David Hem~,inger: 47. Mayor Ch~,iel: That ~suld fill up the hotel rather quickly. I don't think you' re going to do that. David Hs~inger: I don't think so. Councilman Johnson: Five buses would be 2~0 people. Mayor Chv, iel: Okay, anyone else have any specific questions? Councilman Johnson: Mr. Klingelhutz had his hand up. Mayor Ch~,iel: Yes, would you like to c~me up. Mike Klingelhutz: Mike Klingelhutz again and if you gu.va were the HRA cc~ttee, you would know what the typical assessment write down would be in dollars that he was referring to. 43 City Council Meeting ' February 26~ 1990 Mayor Chv, iel: Okay. Thank you2 Co~mcilm~n Boyt: But what he's talking about there is capture tax money and that's what an HRA district has to offer. My interest was, are wa doing what we did for the apartment building which was subsidize it with $600,000.00 or s~ething to that effect which I think gives us a lot more leverage to oave in and denand things than it does when ~'re giving just a standard absorption of the utilities and that sort of thing. It's kind of two different iss,~s. Whether ~'re talking about the apartment building or something that's more of an owner financed. Councilman Workman: Isn't the n~er approximmtely 650? Don Ashworth: No, no. No. What you're looking to is the 3 years of tax increv~nt generated off of a site. In this particular instance, they actually will generate greater increv~_nt over the 3 year period of time. So in other words, specials off of the site will not ec~ml what the 3 years would produce. It's close to it and I think that again when you start looking at relative size and say 3 years of increv~nt, that's a lot different num~oer for a Rosev, ount than it is for... Councilman Workm~n: I think the question may be that I'm leaning towards is and what the public would want to know is, how much isn't this project paying to take care of things? In other words, not what the net result will be to the City and the net result down the road would he that the City would get it's money back. Right? I'm saying, what is this project getting? Maybe that's you~ c~stion. What is this project getting that, they didn't have to take care of the domolition of the building. Preparation of the property. Utilities. Etc.. What's the net gain to the project and the builders of the project that they did not have to that they are going to be paid through the tax increv~nts. Isn't that num~er here 650? Don Ashworth: There'd be a higher nu~er associated with the HRA's acquisition of the woodfra~e structure from Bloo~erg Companies and the am~)unt paid there was exactly what Bloo~-~erg Om%parties had paid from Gary Kirt. ~ney and the HRA is paying for the domolition of that building. They're selling back to the hotel people the ~derlying land at it's fair m~rket value so hypothetically whether they build there or build on the highway, they have really the same cost basis. So I mean are you talking about, see I don't see where Bloom~erg really gained out of the transaction because they paid Gary Kirt and if I rev~er correctly, do you want the n~ers? Councilmmn Workman: Well no. You don't need to go into details. I think that was just sc~e of the q~stions that were, I mean tax increv, ent money is being used here. Don Ashworth: That' s correct. Councilmmn Workm~n: And sc~~y's gaining frc~, that. Don Ashworth: Blo~v~erg ~nles is not. ~hey're basically being repaid exactly what they paid Gary Kirt. Sc~body is gaining frc~, the standpoint that the bdilding is being re~,oved and is being, that rev, oval is being paid for but from a developer's standpoint, they're looking at cc~,ing in and purchasing just 44 City Co,~cil Meeting - February 26~ 1990 the raw land on which they're going to build their structure. That's really what an HRA is all about. I don't know if I answered your question or not. Councilman Johnson: The other thing, they're getting assistance on is paying off special assessments that w~uldn't be at other properties but is unique to downtown and that again is what the HRA is about is to make the downtown property, competitive with other property even though it's got these higher costs because of the new sto~t sewer. The new streets and all that other stuff that's ~-cn [mit into there. Those are going to be paid off through the special assessment reduction progrs~ that ever.ubody gets. I think we ought to Just m~)ve on with this. I move approval with the 5 conditions. The 4 stated here and the 5th one from Paul was the other conditions from the previous site plan review are still in effect other than as m~dified by. these 4 conditions. Mayor Chattel: There's a motion on the floor with Jay's recommendation accepting staff rec~v~ndations of 5 itev~ and incorporate the previous ones that were, are there duplications of anything in incorporating the previous ones? Paul Krauss: I don' t believe so. Mayor Chv, iel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Excuse ~e. ~hat is the 5th one? Councilman Johnson: That the site plan review, conditions of the previous site plan are still in effect on this site plan. Councilman Workman: Okay, and that would include that the final decision of the canopy, provides sufficient room for manuevering buses in that? Councilman Johnson: That's n~ber 4 here. Councilman Workman: T~at our engineering staff will be approving that or disapproving that? Is that what we're saying? Gary ~arren: That's what was rec(m~ended by. Paul in the condition. Councilman Workman: So whether there's a canopy, there or not is u~ to our staff? What kind of a canopy? Councilman Boyt: There's going to be a canopy. It's how high... Mayor Ch~iel: It's the height. Making sure there are proper clearances. Councilman Johnson: Gary's risking his job on that. Councilman Workman: Alright. I'll second it. Councilman Johnson m~ved, Oouncilman Workman seconded to approve the amended Site Plan $89-2 for Country. Hospitality. Suites with the following conditions: 1. Provision of the satisfactory easement protecting courtyard areas located at the east and southeast sides of the building. 45 · City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 2. The minimum courtyard dim~_nsion located east of the building shall be 25 feet. 3. The roof material shall be heavy grade Timberline-type shingles of a cedar or earth tone. 4. The final canopy plans shall be approved by the City Engineer contingent upon the applicant d~v, onstrating sufficient room for m~neuvering of buses. 5. Ail other conditions of the previously approved site plan re~ain in effect. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: I've got a question. Why aren't these plans sealed? There's a place for an engineering seal on here but no engineer signed these? There's a surveyor signed the front page. Mayor Ch~,iel: Yeah, when we receive those, normally they have a PE on those right? ~lt they're drawn just according to... David Hem~,inger: Are you talking on just a site plan? Councilman Johnson: An~vthing cc~,ing before us. Mayor Ch~,iel: ...has to have their PE on th~ basically. Whether that's ~=chanical, electrical... David He~%inger: I guess that's just sc~thing the architect overlooked. He sent th~ directly frc~, his office to here and I did not review th~, before that ti~. Mayor Ch~,iel: Yeah, and I didn't see anything marked on here that said draft. Councilm~n Johnson: Well actually sc~ pages are sealed and so~ pages aren't. Gary Warren: They should be sealed by the appropriate engineer. Councilman Johnson: 2.1 is sealed but the shcct 104 fro~, BR~ isn't. Councilman Boyt: Does it make a difference? David H~r~..,inger: Does it make a difference because otherwise w~ can result, it sealed plans. Councilm~n Johnson: Ch no, no. Gary Warren: Well our records should show sealed plans. Councilman Johnson: Is this BRW one added? Gary Warren: Bm is a site plan and that's being done separately. That's just for reference. 46 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 ZONING ORDI~ ~ TO BH DISTRICT TO ALLU~ BANES WITH DRIVE-THRU WINDOWS, FIRST READING. Councilman Work~an moved, Co~cilw~%an Dimler seconded approving the First Reading of Zoning Ordinance ~t to the BH District allowing banks with drive thru windows. All voted in favor and the m~tion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AM]~%~MENT TO CREATE AN R-16 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FIRST READING. Paul Krauss: During recemt discussions regarding proposed revisions to City. parking regulations, the City ~ouncil directed staff to prepare an R-16 residential district. The reason for this direction was the belief that the existing R-12 district did not provide sufficient density to allow for most types of high density housing that are typically experienced in suburban areas aro~x~ us. The district ~as to require 1 enclosed parking stall per dwelling which ~as to be located in an underground garage. There was also some discussion about potentially raising the allowance for hard surface coverage fr~, 35% that was allow~din the R-12 district. Staff indicated a belief that it was overly restrictive particularly since it's computed on the net density, after w~tlands, public streets and park dedications are excluded fr~m the c~tation. Staff drafted the R-16 district and presented it to the Planning (~ission. As proposed it w~uld allow up to 50% hard surface coverage while requiring increased setbacks well beyond the R-12 district standards which we believe are cc~nusary with the intensity, of development that w~uld be experienced'. The Planning (~,ission r~nded approval of the ordinance but revised staff's proposed height limitations. We have proposed a limitations up to about 50 feet. Above that would require an increased setback. The Planning (~ission felt m~)re c~mfortable with a straight 40 foot height limftation consistent with the existing R-12 district. Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that C/ty (k)uncil approve the first reading of the draft ordinance. Mayor Ch,,iel: Okay, any discussion? Anyone wishing to address this? Councilman Workman: I'd F~ve first reading. Councilman Boyt: I can get us started on a little discussion. I'd second that. Why do we ~ feet? Why not just say 3 stories? Pa,~l Kra,~s: If you feel m~)re ccmfortable wfth that. That's the language that' s in the R-12 district. Councilman Boyt: It just occurs to me that 40 feet, 45 feet. If what we're try. ing to say here is I guess that we ~nt 3 story, buildings. I'm a little unoc~.~ortable with specifying the feet. The other thing is, maybe you recall offhand, what are we counting when wa count c~vered surface? Pa,%l Krauss: We're counting all impervious surfaces. Sidewalks. Parking areas. The building footprint. Councilman Boyt: You don't count the roads? 47 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Paul Krauss: Public streets would be taken out but access drives, private access drives would be counted, yes. Councilman Boyt: Somehow I look at what w~ have across frc~L the el~ntary school and I think about 35% coverage and I'm not sure if, in fact I'm reasonably confident that if I went out there and F~asured the green area, I'd be far short of 65% of the total land area out there. Councilman Workman: Where? Councilm~n Boyt: Across from, the el~_ntary school. The apartments over there. If you work in verse direction, instead of measuring the building and parking lots and the garages, if you go out there and m~asure the green space and say is this 70%, 65% of the total area? I don't think so so I'm just wondering what are we counting. Paul Krauss: Councilman Boyt. I don't know that I can address that specific it~,. I wasn't here when that was approved and don't know it well enough to co~_nt. ~e definition of lot coverage is that that lot coverage means that that portion or percentage of the lot that's covered by impervious surfaces period. I know how we calculate it now and we would calculate all impervious surfaces. Councilman Boyt: Okay, well. I guess maybe we can meet and talk about that in private without tying up time of the Council. The bigger issue is, I don't think we need this at all. I think that is sc~=.body, I agree with the ~ts made that night that we need the opportunity to build at a higher density than we currently have but what I see us doing here is creating something that in all likelihood, the next move is going to be well let's zone it sc~ere. I'm quite concerned that we have nothing in here that the City is getting out of this. We're giving people higher density and I have a sense that we're not getting anything. The City doesn't get anymore out of this than they get out of an R-12. It's not that the City ought to have it's, ought to be getting something out of everything. It's that, if this came in as a PUD, I could see us looking for park space. I could see ~ looking for maybe so~e amenities in the building but when it cc~es in, when we zone it ahead of time this way, you lose that ability. I'm relunctant to see us cc~e in and the next logical step would be to map this sc~=where. I'd like to see us not...approve it. I guess I'd like to see us not put it anywhere until a developer came in and said here's the reason you should change my R-12 zoning to R-16 or whatever and then we look at that and we make some sort of arrang~m'~nts to do that if it's approved. Mayor Ch~,iel: We don' t have an R-16 then to go to. Councilman Boyt: Now it'd have to cc~e in as a PUD and I don't see what this gives us that a PUD wouldn't. So then I ask, why do we need it? Councilman Workman: Are you saying we get m~)re from, a PUD? Mayor Chv, iel: You' re saying we get m~re from a PUD and the same thing out of an R-12 as what you're getting with the R-16. Councilman Workman: A PUD is different from, an R-12. 48 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 199g Councilm~n Boyt: Well a PUD is anythin~ hut sc~~ c(~s in and they sa¥222 Mayor Ch~,iel: Condition m~re things on it. Councilman Boyt: Right. We can take each one of the~ individually and I would see if we passed this, that we shouldn't zone it anywhere but we should, either we pass this and not zone it anywhere or we use a PUD process so that whenever something comes in this dense, we have the ability to treat it as a unique entity and say does it fit what we want or not. It's a thought. I don't know exactly how to work it out. Councilman Johnson: You could almost say the R-16's are only allowed within PUD districts. So we could set R-16 basic standards and if scmebody wants an R-16, they've got to apply for a PUD. Mayor Ch~,iel: Paul? Paul EXauss: There's a couple of responses to that. The wey our FJD ordinance is set up right now is basically once you enter into a PUD, you're throwing out all the other standards so there's nothing to reflect back onto. You create it as you go along. Possibly the more important, I think the PUD warrants some reassess~ant for that reason. But I would not propose that the City Council unilaterally rezone anything to R-16. I think it's s~mething that you should have on the m~p and hold in ~ur back pocket and when s~vebody comes in and presents a plan that you're supportive of that requires this density, that's in an area that's guided for high density use in the comprehensive plan, you can say fine. We'll rezone it at that time. I would not rec(m~ approval of an.ubody saying I've got this great lot out there. It's in a high density district. I don't know who's going to develop it but why. don't you rezone it for me. I would recc~d that you deny that. Councilman Johnson: So we'd stick R-16 on this map under the legend. Pa~%l EXauss: It would be in the key. Councilman Johnson: But that's it? Pa~%l Krmms: Right. Mayor Ch~,iel: Right. Strictly on the legend but no specific location. Councilman Johnson: I think we need the flexibility, of the R-16. Why you say it may not provide any lo,ar cost housing, it provides the opportunity that sc~_body could come in and design some slightly m~re affordable. As I say, we'll never get ~hat Minneapolis or ~y else, one of the real urban areas considers affordable housing. S(~thing under $4gg.gg a month or whatever. We'll probably never mc that in this town even with an R-16. It's going to be a very. nice R-16 but it might not be as expensive as if we had to build it R-12. Mayor Ch~,iel: Okay. Any other fur~ discussion? Councilman Boyt: Just one other thing. Since this is the first reading, I would suggest that you consider taking hc~e occupation out of the pezmit~ uses in the R-16. 49 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Mayor Chv, iel: Hc~ occupation in the R-16. Councilman Johnson: I don't know. Councilman Boyt: Well I'm personally not for home occupations in an apartment buildings. Councilm~n Workman: What's a hc~Le occupation? Councilman Boyt: Well there's a whole list of them,. I don't have mine. Mayor Chniel: You can have so many vehicles. Co~u~cilman Boyt: Right and one non-related employee. Co, mcilman Johnson: It's what I'm about to set up in a couple ~seks. Councilman Boyt: In your area, you have the right to do that. I'm saying we're creating a new zone and I would encourage us to at least think about not putting hc~e occupations in there. Councilman Johnson: Are they allo~ in R-127 Paul Krauss: I believe so, yes. Mayor Chmiel: That would be consistent. Councilman Workman: well I'll tell you what folks. Up in the twin ho~s in Chaparall, they're c~rrently going through a big fight right now because sc~where in their convenants in the Chaparall Homeowner's Association in the Twins, they're telling people they can't r~ daycare out of their hom~s. It's turning into a big battle. I'm not going to stick my nose into this particular probl~L but you start to tell people they can't do that and this wc~n is single or divorced or a widow and that's her only income and they're telling her she can' t do that any, ore. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying you couldn't sell Mary Kay out of your house? Councilman Boyt: Actually in o[%~ develol:~ent you can't. Councilman Workm. z~n: So I'd be very careful about what we discuss. Sc~body's livelihood could be at stake. Councilman Johnson: I m~an there are sc~ people who don't have a regular office. They work out of wherever they live. Whether they sell insurance or. whatever. Carpeting. Whatever. Tney have no office per se. Councilman Boyt: we're talking about a new zone. It doesn't exist. That's not taking anybody in sc~thlng and moving them out of it. Mayor Ct~,iel: Yeah, but I don't know. If we're going to be consistent with the R-12, it should be consistent with the R-16. 50 City. Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 Councilman Workman: People move in and they. don't know that. Councilwoman Dim]er: That's true and it's likely to be low incc~ people are going to ~rve in there and they're going to need a hc~ occupation. Mayor Ch~,iel: Okay, we have this as a first reading anyway in looking at it. My. suggestion is that we keep moving on with this. We have-a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance ;~n~ment to create an R-16 High Density. Residential District. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: WEST 78TH STRRWT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, O0~tCISMANWOR~IAN. Councilman Workman: West 78th is a question that has also ~ raised in pretty. much, sc~ of the sam.~ breath with HRA and who's to blame and everything else like that. It's not so much what the beck are you going to do with that downtown down there? Now the building appears closer. ~e~r that's right or wrong r~ains to be seen. I guess I'd like to, and I don't have my darn now because I jumped ahead but I'd like to, I don't know. Don, you ms~o kind of went into traffic studies and evexything else like that. We do have sc~ other things going on that I don't know that we need to discuss here now about eventual traffic patterns and everything else. TH 101. All I'm conveying with this ibav, right now is that people are frustrated with downtown. I brought in the little bit of information that the State High, my Patrol brought up. Not the Carver County Sheriff's, that a car got stalled on West 78th and then vehicles did have to go up on the curb to go around. I came out of Market Blvd. just this week, over the weekend, and a front end loader Bobcat, a rather large one. I believe it was the City that was being used to clear sidewalks or something. I don't know what it was. It went out Market and took a left to go west and I couldn't get around it. It was m~ving very., very. slow. It was m~)ving as fast as it could. Traffic was building behind me but it was over on the curb and j~t kind of hobbling along. But sc~ of those concerns that frustrate people. I bring it ~ because they frustrate people. They frustrate me sc~~t. If we need in fact to look at the implications of fur~ development downtown. If in fact we have a roadway sysbs~ that's adequate. That's safe. I've had sufficient fccdback from people to say that they're telling me it's not and how much we need to work. Are we going to tear down all of downtown? Again, I'm in no way suggesting that today but what I'm saying is, find out maybe ~ahat is going to be our eventuality, here and what we can do to make it more ccmfort~_hle for people to cc~ into town and go through town to do business, etc.. I'd like to ~ that discussion on a future agenda it~% like that means a whole lot. - Councilwoman Dimler: Like March 12th right? Councilman Boyt: Why don't you refer it to Public Safety? 51 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilman Work~an: That'd be an idea too. Maybe Public Safety, maybe have their police officers on Public Safety could st~y that. It's definitely a problem. I'm definitely getting feedback frc~, it and people are mad about it. I'm thus duly transferring their frustration to City staff. Jim Chaffee: There's a deputy on right now who w~uld love to cc~ down and talk to you about that. Co~mcilFan Work,an: Well have him swing by. the house. HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS, COUNCILMAN WORKMAN. Council~n WorkFan: Heritage Park Apartments. Gary, you went into sc~ detail on why this all happened. My. question is, and I'm going to relate this to the hotel and this is why the hotel has been getting scrutinized so much because we put so m~h effort, HRA, City Council and money in tax increment dollars, etc. and what happens is it starts getting built and everybody goes, did we approve that or what happened there? That's why. I'm a little leery about is the canopy. going to be there on the hotel or wasn't or isn't, how's it going to look? We approve one thing and we get another. What is our recourse against this? We're not going to tear down the apartment building. What is our recourse to developers who do contrary to what we approve? Gary Warren: ~ City Attorney has advised F~ on a nt=~er of occasions that we have the ability to Fake th~., put it back the way it was supposed to be. Councilman Johnson: That' s not reasonable. Ga~ Warren: Well I'm just telling you and Roger please correct Fe if I'm misspeaking here. Roger Knutson: Tneoretical possibility, we all know it is not practical. CouncilFan Johnson: Did we approve the blueprints? The building plans? Co~u~cilwan Boyt: Yes. Councilsan Johnson: Not we the City Council but we the staff. ~ilding inspectors when the actual plans came in and those plans had the building now higher than it was approved on the site plan? Gary Warren: These plans have a very tainted past as far as that. The developer in a F~eting we had tried to protray the picture here that we had one suk~,ittal and everything was cc~.~lete and bang, it was approved and that was not the case and that's part of the problem that we've lived with on a lot of these projects is that, and you're even seeing it here with Country Suites is that whether it's the necessary process or what I don't know but we are constantly plagued, staff is, by changing plans. By. revisions. Modifications. Improvements in a lot of cases. It's not all bad, to the point where we al~st don't know what...the developer who w~nt into basically was making a utility connection out there to Chan View and we had specifically a condition of approval that required him to suk~.,it a separate utility plan to the City Engineering department for approval prior to co~'~ncing with it. Well, that was never done and with the way things w~nt, it wasn't tmtil after that we caught up 52 City Oo~mcil Meeting - February 26 ~ 1990 with the fact that be was connecting to Chan View and we ~ not yet had a chance to address the fact that we wanted the stou% sewer to go down into the other part of the city storm sewer systev, which we did rectify at a later date by extending in fact the change order on the north side parking lot. One of the elements of that was the City extended storm sewex to intercept and we modified their stony, sewer charges as a result of that. It is a sorted past and this 1'8" difference, there w~re sc~e char~es that went on in the shuffle there that I 'm not totally clear on just how it all ~nt down. OounciLm~n Workmmn: When we're standing out in these neighbors yards on Chan view talking about a fence that didn't quite work out and now that fence apparently is 8 inches shorter than they were prc~ised and ~ of these little things that you're standing in their yard and they're pointing up at that thing and it is overshad~ and they're going, we don't ever r~member that it was proposed to be that high. Well, they were right by 2 feet. It doesn't sound like a lot out of a project and everything else but they were right and it starts to get a little ev~arrassing and I'm not blaning engineering and everything else. It's a cc~)licated business but 2 feet is way off. I mean that's way off. I thought construction ~s more of a precision art or did sc~x]y purposely try to deceive us? Gary Warren: I don' t m~an to imply that it was a mistake in the field.' It's k~ilt deliberately at the elevation that it is. The plans, and Steve Kirch%an in cP~cking through the plan suh~,ittals on this after the fact, there was a plan that cave in that showed a 2 foot difference in elevation frc~ the previous set that they actually shr~ to 1' 8" by taking out 1 block course of block in the basement for the parking garage and that's how it cave to 1'8" instead of 2' but that was kind of a plan suhnittal to Steve in the building department that ms pretty harmlessly suh%it~ and there was no big fanfare about hey, you guys we decided we've got to raise the building 2 feet. It was only in looking back that we really found that that was the case. Oouncilm~n Johnson: was that noted under revisions? Gary Warren: I don't recall. You mean on the revision block on the plans? Councilm~n Johnson: In the revision block on the plans, when you make a fundav~ntal change like that, whatever engineer signed that plan, without that on there, I think m~ybe the Board of Emgineering exsa%iners should be infonmed of this o Paul Krauss: Typically you don' t get that kind of a notice and they hand you a sheet with a packet of 3~ or 4~ s~ts in it as a guessing game. Catch me if you can basically. Councikm~n Workm~n: And then the developers are all in here ~elling us to trust the~,. I don't know, I'm mot going to beat this point into the ground. I'm just saying, we are, the hook is out there. Do this hotel. Do this. DO that amd they snag ~%s and then boy, it's never we're going to do better. We're 'going to improve this. We're going to put brick on now rather than plywood frc~ Plywood Minnesota. It's never an improve%emt. It's alwaFs you know. We need to start asking for the Crystal Palace so that we get s(arething half decent. You know Mr. ~urver's has a point. We got to start building sc~e quality buildings that are going to last a long time so our great grand children will see it and it 53 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 will be falling apart. Councilman Boyt: For what it's worth, we tried. I tried to get brick on that building since we were paying over half a million dollars in subsidy to that building and I couldn't get it. I think this is a really good discussion. Tne Planning Co~Lisslon has tried a few times to get s(~ve kind of construction standard for exteriors. A n~_r of c(m~Lunities around here have it. We don't to speak of. I think Eden Prairie has a brick or better. Paul Kral%ss: Blo(~,ington does. Councilman Boyt: Bloomington has a brick. We coltld do this kind of stuff if we just lay it out ahead of time. Co,mcil~an Workman: The plain and sim~)le fact and it's been my thread through this whole council m~eting tonight. I apologize, for boring everybody but is that I kind of feel like we're getting took in so many cases and that's why I load up the Council presentations. We're getting took. We took ourselves on West 78th ma.Foe. I don't know. Or whoever was on the Council ~lt we got to start, that's the whole HRA arg~_nt. Stop getting took and led down this golden path and then all of a sudden, we have so much invested and we're doing such a good job to help sc~.~ebody do a good job but on the other side, they're kind of trying to get by as cheaply as possible and they're business people and we just kind of, oh, okay. Okay. Okay. We agree is down and then the next thing you know we've got something that's a little bit not what we wanted. Mayor Ch~,iel: I think what we're going to have to do is start sticking to your guns. Say this is what we ~nt. Councilman Johnson: Especially on these blueprints, insist upon a written list of all revisions on new suh~ittals. They make a sut~,ittal to correct the landscaping and within that s~.,ittal they've raised the building 2 feet and don't bother mentioning it, it'd be very difficult for staff to catch that. The sut~,ittal on the West 78th Street set of blueprints for all that work was over 50 pages long of bl~prints. Each Council m~mber didn't get it to review it. We had to c~me up to City Hall here instead of giving everybody 50 pages of blueprints and review th~,. I reviewed those things and I never noticed that the darn old city hall was crooked in going through there. I missed that Cc~,pletely. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, if I may just real quickly. There's a procedural issue in here as well that I would hope that we learn fr~m and that is that we spend a lot of time in terms of the design for that entire facility and it includes the HRA and what it would look like and I think if I showed you the original set of plans and how the architecture was established for that where literally the building moved on around it, had sc~e real character to it. Those had all been approved. Were literally down to the timeframe of issuing penvLits and the developer came back in front of just the City Council saying well, this really isn't economical for [~ to do it in this fashion and they showed what would be the, I'll call it the plain Jane model that you have out there today and we approved it. I would hope that we learned fr~., those types of mistakes too in ter~ of not allowing someone to literally come in in the last minute and Fake those types of changes. I know Bill did fight for the brick ism~ but as i~ortant to Fe was they changed the entire architecture of that structure. It 54 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 was very dramatic and it would have made a mmjor change as that project affected neighboring proper ties. Mayor (~,iel: I think we've probably covered the subject quite well. Councilman Workman: Can I continue on my other tw~ it~ quickly before you do or do you ~mnt m~ to take a break? Mayor Ch~,iel: What other two ite%s? Councilman Workman: My. Metropolitan Waste Control (km~ission and my resolution. Mayor Ch~,iel: Okay. Go ahead. Councilman Workman: Ursula and I today spent m~st of the day down at the State Capital lobbying the legislators and speaking to a press conference of the tobacco free 2~ group which was very w~ll attended by. the Press, both nationally and locally, to keep the legislators mits off of our vending ban. They ~_-~c it as kind of a fix it to take care of everybody and they ~nt to pre-e~fc what we've done and kind of water it do~n to where Jay wants it. I think we did a real good job of saying no. Please leave our, n%~..~er one leave it alone. We think it's a good idea. ~ two, don't take away our right as a city to dictate what we ~ant to do in our c~,unity because we think we can do a better job than the legislature can but I was presented with a draft resolution basically saying that, I won' t read it to everyb(x]y but I 'd hope. that we could have it in our packet next meeting to send along, and that might be too late. Councilwoman Dimler: That's too late. They're going to consider it on the 9th wasn't it? Don Ashworth: We have a special meeting on March 5th. Councilman Workman: Maybe for March 5th. Just a resolution saying, let us contim~ with the powers that we have as a City. Council to make these decisions. If you want to read the resolution, I won't read it through. March 5th, ma.vbe we can pitch it. Mayor Ch~,iel: March 6th. Councilman Johnson: Or we can waive our things and do it today. I havem't read it .vet. Councilman Workman: Would you like me to read it? Councilman Boyt: It's after 11:~0 and w~'ve still got plenty, of agenda ite~. Mayor Ch~iel: Let's m~ve it on. Councilman Workman: Well I think it's sc~thing that's important that I don't Councilman Johnson: Let's get it on the March 6th agenda. 55 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 Councilman Workman: Tnis is so~.~thing that can be delivered to legislators and will do it personally~ Co,~cilwoman Dim]er: It might end up on thei~ agenda before March 6th~ Mayor Chmiel: Well just read what you have. Councilman Workman: Okay, quickly. The Co, moil, the City of Chanhassen considers tobacco vending machines within the City to be it's responsibility as part of their basic authority to enact health and safety ordinances for it's citizens. House File 2042 and Senate File 1923 currently being considered by the Minnesota Legislature contains a cla~u~e that would pre-er, pt local goverr~ent frcm controlling the place%ent of tobacco vending machines. Resolve that the c(m~,on Co, moil urges the legislature to reject a pre-emption clause and allow the City to join many other cities currently considering restrictions and the location of tobacco vending machines to reduce the illegal sale of tobacco to minors. Pretty straight forward. Mayor Chmiel: What you're going to have to do is waive it first. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dim, let seconded to waive the Rules of Co, moil Procedure to vote on a Council Presentation item,. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution ~90-23: Councilman Workman m~)ved, CouncilFan Johnson seconded to approve the following resolution: The City of Chanhassen considers tobacco vending machines within the City to be it's responsibility as part of their basic authority to enact health and safety ordinances for it's citizens. House File 2042 and Senate File 1923 c%~rrently being considered by the Minnesota Legislature contains a clause that would pre-er, pt local government fro~, controlling the placement of tobacco vending machines. Resolve that the c~)n Council urges the legislature to reject a pre-ev, ption clause and allow the City to join many other cities currently considering restrictions and the location of tobacco vending ~chines to reduce the illegal sale of tobacco to m~nors. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman: What I hope to do then is get this to every ~v~er of the cc~r~erce c~v~,it~s in both the House and the Senate. Thank you. Lastly, Metropolitan Waste Control Cc~mission, I think maybe all of you saw it. Metropolitan Waste Control Cc~,ission has got a new little com~,ittee. General Advisory (km~,ittee. I contacted Don Ashworth and the City Planner about what maybe that's all about. Sc~,ething that the City would he interested in having sc~body on it. You've all got the info~ation sheet on it. Councilman Johnson: I filled it out already. CouncilFan Work~an: Ch, you want to be on it then? CouncilFan Johnson: Yeah. 56 City Council Meeting - February 26, 199~ Councilman Workman: Okay. I thought you didn't have enough time and the ~ would give you a problem, and now you ~ant to get on... Councilman Johnson: That also goes right along with what I've done the last 15 years o Councilman Workman: Well what I've done is I've also filled it out and maybe can c(x~te one another. I've talked to Gloria Veerling. She's our representative on the Metropolitan Waste Control (km~dssion. I've talked to Marcy. Waritz and Dirk DeVries about it a little bit so t~. know that my intentions are there and we can talk about it later. Councilman Johnson: I ~as about to talk to ~ too but I haven't had time. Councilman Boyt: 1~%ere do you guys find tbs time? Mayor C~,iel: Okay, next item, on the agenda is the upd~ted drug awareness progrs~ which we did discuss the last time. But in detail I'd like from Jim,, do you have it available there? I asked Jim to, he and I worked together to up with proposals as to what we should have in this particular cce~ission. Specifically why tomorrow we're also presenting this at the Chamber of along with Margie Karjalehti with, you've got to be kidding, on that specific item,. Why. don't you take it a~ay and just go over it Jim. Jim, Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, ~bers of the Council. You may rem~m=_r that we did discuss this at the last Council m~--ting only briefly. JUst to give you a little history behind it. We look at a 3 pronged approach from a public safety standpoint in drug enforc~%ent, drug awareness type of situations. First prong of course is enforcement. The City. got involved in that approximately 2 years ago with the joining of the joint task force, Southwest Metro Joint Drug Task Force. That was the enforoav~nt arm of it. Part of that triad if ~u will then beca%e prevention and you ~ay remember that, I think it was in Oc~ we had the Cities Fight Back Against Drug ?__~k. ~hat was considered part of the prevention approach. Mayor Ch%iel's been very. instrumental in pushing us forward in the prevention area. This is part of that, the second prong of this 3 prong approach and again in the prevention area. What we are proposing is a task force made up of 6 to 8 junior and senior high students. One public safety representative. One city attorney representative. T~o council men, ers. A county representative and that would be sc~mody, we're looking at from say coed, unity services chemical dependency.. We're looking at a county sheriff representative. A school district representative. A (lmmber of Omr~ce representative. One or both local legislators. In addition to, we are looking at ~s of clergy.. This is right now in the planning stages. Mayor (2~,iel: And also the m~dia. Jim, Chaffee: And the m~dia, right. Since we have 2 of them. sitting over there. It will be a joint effort for this group to get together and we've talked about possibly on a quarterly hasis to be a guiding force for us in the c~,unity and specifically us in public safety. Directing us to what the problem.- are. ~hat they see as solutions possibly to helping us Prevent the situation we are now enforcing. Just to briefly expound on the treatment approach which is the third prong of the 3 prong area. If you r~er the 57 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 President in his State of the Union address and the Governor in his State of the State address, address the drug issue. Basically that address covered the treatm~_nt. Monies have not been freed [~ as of yet from Ms. Mavey for that area but w~ are looking to possibly get so~e monies available for us in treatment. Once that is available, w~'ll have this 3 prong approach and hopefully be able to ~ke a dent in the drug problev, in the com~,unity. Right now it's just open for discussion to see if anybody has any comments or questions or concerns regarding this. As Mayor Chs, iel said, tc~,orrowwe're presenting this to the Cham~er of Omr~erce and then on March 6th we are meeting withers of the clergy in the cc~v, lmity to go over some of these issues. Mayor Chv, iel: Any disc~sion? None? Council,'mn Boyt: I would slE3gest that we not put the City Attorney on there unless he's going to work for free. Mayor Ch~.,iel: He might do that. Councilm~n Boyt: We don't have him, on our other ccm~;issions or task force or whatever. Councilm~n W~rk~n: Could it be a city, a person in the city who's an attorney who would want to. Mayor Chmiel: That could be also. Co~ncilm~n Johnson: It could be the County Attorney. That's where the prosecution comes frcm. Mayor Chmiel: We could have one person serve two different f~lnctions. Jim, Chaffee: I think it was a typographical error. It should have been one attorney from, the city. Councilmmn Boyt: Okay, I think where it says Cham~er of Omv~ce representative. What you're really talking about is a local business representative who ~'~y or ~y not be in the Cham~r of C~nvLerce? Jim, Chaffee: Correct. Councilm~an Boyt: And som. ewhere in here and I know it's a rather lengthy document but before the task force is formed, what I'd like to have th~, do is come UP with 2 or 3 or 4 objectives. Mayor Ch~,iel: That's exactly what will be done. ~lt I think that particular c~mittee should be the people to oare up with that. Councilmmn Boyt: Or so~body but very early on before the thing becomes official w~ should have some objectives so we know what w~'re approving. Mayor Chv, iel: Tne next thing that I had too was, and I'm going to discuss it rather briefly. April 22nd is going to be National Earth Day and that I would like to see us do something to enhance the City and see if we can get people in planting trees or very possibly to acquiring ~_~c~lings. If we can get bare root 58 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 and look at maybe getting that to see if ~ can get out to the cc~m~ity~ Don Ashworth: I just happen to be reading on that. Mayor Ch%iel: Good. Then mmybe we can discuss it next Council m~eting. Councilman Johnson: I think the rec2cling cc~ttee ~nts to do s(x~ething for Earth Day too but right now we're rather busy on just tzy. ing to get the containers out. AE~INSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD (~F ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS, Pf2tNNING DIOR. Pa,~l Kra~ms: At the last meeting of the Board of ~justments, staff becar~ aware of the fact that F~v~_rs are annually appointed and that we have not reappointed the.v, thus far. I must apologize for the c~ission was mine. I've since spoken to Willard Johnson and Carol Watson. They're here tonight. They have indicated a desire to be re-appointed. We did not advertise for the position but we're not aware of anybody waiting in the wings looking to get on the board. I guess w~'re seeking your input tonight. If you wish us to advertise, we certainly will. Otherwise we do have t~D ~.~_rs willing to serve. Mayor Ch~,iel: And I appreciate the t~D m~ers that w~ have but I think to again be consistent with what we've done, I think we should go through the advertising process. Just go and __--c if there's anyone else out there. I doubt whether we're going to find anyone but I think we should go through that process. Councilman Boyt: I think that when wa do this, and I'd like to see us be consistent with all our c~m~issions when we do this, we should as part of the advertis~v~nt, indicate that the e~cumbants are ~---cking re-appointment. We used to do that in the past. Councilw~an Dimler: I just have a little technicality.. I had this resolution and it said for co~v, ission vacancies. Is the Board a c~mr~,ission? Is the Board of Adjustments considered a cc~ssion? Councilman Boyt: Probably not. Councilman Johnson: It's under a different set of rules. Mayor Ch~,iel: You might have a good point. Councilman Johnson: It's zoning. Councilman Work~an: I'd like to approve these guys tonight. Council~aman DL~.]er: It wouldn't be a lack of consistency.. Councilman Boyt: But you're talking about the spirit of what you put into place. AlthoLE3h I think ~hat I hear, and I would certainly join that, we're 59 City Council Meeting - Febr~mry 26~ 1990 going to vote to reappoint these people. The spirit of what w~ were saying is w~ want all these things to be open and out in the public. Personally I don't think we should be choosing whether it's the HRA or the Board of Adjustment and Appeals or our regular co~,issions. Everything ought to be the same. Councilwc~..an Dim, let: Are you saying that this resolution did not cover the Board or the HRA...? Counctlmmn Johnson: Tnat hasn't been passed yet either has it? Councilman Boyt: Yeah it has. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. councilwoman Dim]er: Would you like to address that Roger? Are they considered differently and under different rules? Roger Knutson: As the resolution? Councilwoman Dim]er: Yes. Roger Knutson: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals is not a cc~v, ission. It's Fmybe the wrong choice of words. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I agree with Bill. Tne spirit of it is appointing, nfs. The HRA is not a cc~v, ission either. We'd be saying that we're not going to advertise HRA. Councilwoman Dim]er: Tnat's right though we aren't. Councilman Johnson: If it's not the council, we'd certainly want to advertise the HRA. We haven't in the past because it's been Council. Mayor Ch~tiel: I think ~ should just go through the mechanics as I said originally and indicate in there that 2 existing board m~ers are running for their position as well. councilman Work,mn: Maybe with a brief description of what the Board of Adj ustm~nts does. Councilman Johnson: Yes. And what q~lifications we'll be looking for. Experience in zoning matters. Mayor Chniel: Can you condense that to smmll? Advertising rates are very minimal but. Councilman Johnson: Tnis is not a board that you can afford to bring somebody on that doesn't know anything about zoning or city ordinances or anything. Councilman Workman: I think a description of what they do would deter people. Mayor Chv, iel: Okay, Paul do you have it? 60 City. Oouncil Meeting - February 26~ 1990 Pal~l Krauss: Yes. [~der the understanding though that the m~ers can continue to serve until we... Mayor Ch~,iel: Yes. fbunci]m~n Work~an: I thought the ordinance basically said no. CouncilFan Boyt: Well get the ad in the paper. They. don't have one c(xning up Oouncilwuman Dimler: We're just complying with the spirit of the ordinance, or the resolution. APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE STUDY C(P~ITTEE, PUBLIC SAFETY. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, on December 4, 1989 the Public Safety. presented a proposal to Oouncil recc~~ing the establish~t of a police study c~m~,it~. At that time Council approved the concept with sc~e revisions and quite frankly with s~me reservations. Since that time we advertised for t~D citizens at large to be appointed to this c~r~,ittee as directed by Council which is one of the revisions that they requested on Dece~er 4th. We have received only 2 applications after advertising twice for the positions. While looking at this, I started having second thoughts especially after reading sc~ of the ~ts of the Council Minutes for that night. Consequently, it's my recc~mv~_ndation that we re-evaluate the need for a police study cc~ttee and make recommendations to you at the Council meeting on March 12, 1990. Part of my reasons behind that, and just part of ths~,, is that our crime rate is down. Things are in han~)ny with the Sheriff's Department, the State Patrol and the Public Safety (km~ission at this time. We are a tool of the City and the citizens at large. We do what you want us to do. If .uou are ccmfort~_h_le with what we're doing, and I think you are at this time, then we are comfortable. I ay, not in a position now or do I think I'm going to be in the near future, to make any rec~v~mdations of local police department. As a matter of fact, again with the c(m, fort level the my it is right now, the crime rate down, I think sc~body's doing something right. We are. The Sheriff's Department. State Patrol. I certainly will look at alternatives within the contract s.uste~, itself, i.e. ~mybe an added deputy for 1991 but again this will be done through the efforts of Chief Deputy Jim Castleberry and Sheriff A1 Wallin. I will propose an expansion of the contract if I see a r~. ~3ain, I think you might have even read in the local edition of the Villager, our crime rate is down. Our po~llation is up. ~y's doing sc~thing right. Basically I presented this as a discussion ire% for tonight with a full report to be brought back to Council again on March 12, 1990. Mayor Ch~,iel: Good. Thank you Jim. Councilsmn Johnson: Sounds logical. Don Ashworth: Did the Council act then on the c0~,ittee? Maybe I missed that. Mayor Ch~,iel: No. It's going to be brought up on March 12th's agenda. Don Ashworth: So it goes back onto March 12th? Okay. 61 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilman Johnson: Was it published? Councilwoman Dim~ler: No. We don't have to publish it. Don Ashworth: This, as it appears here in front of you was published to the best of my knowledge. Councilman Johnson: So w~ could take action? Don Ashworth: You could take action if you wanted. Mayor Chniel: Jim m~ntioned March 12th so let's go with that. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, SET DATE FOR FINALIZING BOARD ACTION, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: We've already set the first m~eting for the Board of Adjustments to occur for May 15th. I think w~ had a special time on that. I really do not think that you' re going to have that many people in on either the 15th or the 28th. I think last year w~ had a number of people in on the initial session but by the time w~ got into the last ~'~eting, the assessor had ~t with m~)st of the people and I think you were down to just the 2, 3, 5 people who attended. Accordingly, I think that we could take care of the second m~eting as a part of our regular Council agenda. I would look to May 28th but in doing that, I would like to be able to work with the Mayor to determine whether or not an early start was necessary or not. I won't know for another 30 days how big that agenda will be for May 28th and if possible, we should be able just to start it at 7:30 and be able to take care of all of our business including the Board. But if necessary, I'd like to work with Don and potentially set 6:30 or 7:00 if it appears as though an early start is necessary. Councilman Johnson: Are we m~eting the 28th? I thought that was, because that's Ms~,orial Day. I thought w~ had modified the month of May to first and third? Councilman Boyt: No, one of th~; is right at the end of the money. Mayor Chv, iel: The 28th is Mav, orial Day. How about ~sday the 29th? Councilwoman Dim]er: We already ~'~ved it to another date. Don Ashworth: I'll report to the City. Council Tuesday what night you picked out and verify with the Assessor if that night's okay with him. DISCUSSION ~ING VARIANCE PROCEDURE AND REGULATIONS, PLANNING DIRECTOR. Paul Krauss: On several occasions in the past... Mayor Ch~Liel: Is this brief Paul? Paul Krauss: I think the discussion with it might be rather lengthy. 62 City fbuncil M~eting - February 26~ 1990 Mayor Ch~,iel: I thought there was a lot of thought put into this and I appreciate your going through it. Paul Krauss: We're putting this on basically I should add as an info~mational it~v, to get so~e direction frc~ Council. It's not a matter that we've discussed with the Board of ~djustments. I ~mtioned it to tbs~ tonight and they're interested in it obviously and they're here. Nor have we discussed at the Planning Co,mission some of the changes ~m're proposing w~uld affect them as well. Basically we're brirgirg it to you and if you tell us you don't want us to proceed with it, we'll drop it but it appeared to us in the past that there was s~e desire to have so~e flexibility on it in the variance procedure that is not now allo~ed. Working with the City Attorney we felt that that could be offered while still keeping with the intent of the variance procedure and not violating it. There's been a lot of discussion about State enabling legislation changing how we conduct ourselves with variances and it may in fact do that but it's not clear to ~m at this point ~at it's going to do or when it's going to do it. That enabling act is kicked around now for almost 3 years and it still isn't adopted and in the short session this .~ar, it's probably not likely to either. What we propose that you look is revised larguage for the hardship criteria. ~he other thing that we propose that you look at is ~nding the procedures in te~ms of who reviews variances and when. We find that for normal variances, the one's we had on tonight. The h~%e setback, the shed setback... one or tw~ variances. I think it ultimately ca~e down to one variance for a road grade but that was a variance the Planning (km~.ission and City Council considered in the context of the subdivision. If you just take the variance out of context and put it before the Board of ~just~nts, I don't know that you're giving that project a fair shake. There may be other things that you considered in developing that rec(~r~mdation. Also, there's the matter of time and how we bounce a developer back and forth or an individual back and forth for that matter. In the case of Vineland Forest, it w~nt through the Planning fkm~ission. There were no variances there. It wemt to the City. Council. It got bounced back because we were looking at roads. A variance materialized. At that point we have to tell the develop, well the City Council likes it but we'll have to get the Board of Adjush~ent to approve it so it goes back on one of their agendas. Frankly the process is not unworkable but it's a little cl~mky and other cctv, unities have found ways to work around it and we propose one of those ways of doing that. And again we're just throwing this out for discussion purposes and we'll take our cue from you on this. Mayor Ch~,iel: Thank you. I guess I have just one quick question. Roger, what is the status of the variance thing that we discussed s~me time ago with s(m~ of the State changes that were going to be? Boger Knutson: It's part of the rewriting of the entire land use laws. The current draft, it sits in the legislature today'would not allow flexibility. That was in an earlier draft that has ~ now put aside. Now that's just going to hearing, will be going to hearing. It hasn't gone to hearing .vet and how it finally works it's way out is anyone's guess. Mayor (2~iel: Is there anyone lobbying for the previous, for the earlier one? Roger Knutson: Yes. M~. 63 City fbuncil M~eting - February 26, 1990 Mayor Ch~.,iel: That's why I was asking the question. Paul Krauss: There's also a nu~_r of c~tunities lobbying against it for vario~ reasons. Roger Knutson: ~ only c(m~tent I have made, acting as a private individual, is that I like to see cities have the discretion to set standards that they think is subject to their cc~,unity. Not that I think the standards for variances should be tough or weak or anything else. Just a courtesy to City Council to set those standards. There are others who say, and I've argued at length about it, that there's a real need for State unifoz~,ity on this issue. My. response to that has been, anyone who has gone to more than one city council and seen how various city councils handle variances has realized that there is no state consistency now anyway. Except sc~ city councils like to play by the rules and a m~re liberal interpretation of it. Councilman Johnson: And after the next election, that changes too. Council~'~n Boyt: I'd like to mention a couple things if I might. difficulties I see with this. First, in your description Paul of the process, that's exactly what w~'re doing today. What you're proposing. Everything doesn't go to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Paul Krauss: That's tr~ but I'll leave it to Roger, the way the ordinance is structured right now, it probably should. Councilman Boyt: Okay, but it doesn't. So what you're proposing is to bring this in line with what we're act~mlly doing? CouncilFan Johnson: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Which Fakes sense. Boy, the desire to have so~ kind of reasonable flexibility, that's very t~,pting. What I find though in so~ of your c(m~nts here. R~asonable use is further defined as [%se cc~,only Fade by other properties in the district. Mayor Chmiel: What page are you on Bill? Councilman Boyt: That's page 3, the second line frc~ the top. The question that I had was, what if the ~rrounding properties all have non-conforming uses which in fact our ordinances say that non-confo~,ing uses can't be perpetuated if they burn down or whatever. Are we really gaining flexibility there? Councilman Johnson: It certainly ~)uld have helped [~ clean up Carver Beach. Paul Krauss: ~ne variance would not apply to the use of the property. It would apply to standards applied to that property. Carver Beach is a good case in point. If everybody is on a 7,000 sc~are foot lot, you make t_he new person to cc~e in to have a 15,000 square foot lot or do you take those 7,000 square foot lots into consideration? I think the way these are structured it would encourage you to take that into consideration. Councilman Boyt: Well there's the advantage. I think of the Lake Riley situation that we j~t extended here. There certainly is an advantage to say 64 City Council Neeting - February 26~ 199~ well nobody on either side of the sky. has side setbacks either so we're really putting this house into one that fits. And it would be nice to have s~=way to do that. I'm just real concerned that what we end up doing is creating, is we can ' t fix a probl~,. Councilman Johnson: It makes it worse. Councilman Boyt: So that's one issue that I'd sure like you to look at before we puxsue this a whole lot further. Then under your proposed point A at the bottom of page 3, literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means the property, cannot be put to reasonable use. Well, to me that means anything can fit in there because you then go on to say reasonable [me because of size, physical surrounding, shape or topography., Tell F~ something you left out? We're really saying, if I can't do ~hat I want to do with my piece of property., then I can do it because this says I can. Undue hardship. Is it undue hardship if I can't have my deck? Mayor Ch~iel: Might be. Councilman Boyt: Well it isn't currently. Paul Krauss: No, but I think this allow~ you to, 'you've got exercise this with great caution. ~hen we had that variance and I forget ~ho the applicant was on Lake Riley., you and I had a long discussion about what was a reasonable use of the property. In the staff report I had recc~m~ed that it be approved because it was reasonable to think that they should have a 3 bedroom house with a deck sa~e as other people had on adjoining lots. I re~a,~r Councilman Bo.vt that you had some concerns with that theory and there was ano~ method found to approve it but I think that this wording would allow us to take those things into consideration. If you think a reasonable use of a lot is not the bare minim~'s 9~ square foot residence that satisfies building code but is rather what the normal Chanhassen resident probably baa a right to expect to live in. This would allow you the latit[~e to approve those sorts of variances. Councilman Bo.vt: Well somewhere in here, there's two things that happened with a variance at least. One of them is that we allow sc~m~dy to make reasonable ~me of their property. The other one is, we protect surrounding property, owners by giving them the protection of our zoning laws. All I'm saying is that we've got enough probl~ with our current interpretation of our variance ordinance. To now co~ in and say, any undue hardship for any of these reasons, I maintain that the ~ay A is written right now, anything can pass. Councilman Johnson: I don't like the last sentence of A. Reasonable use is a use c~nly made by. other properties in the district. Again, look at Carver Beach. That says we're just going to perpetuate those non-co~lying things. Cxx~nly the sheds are up against the property, line so the one we're talking about today, under this would say that's fine. In Carver Beach there are no Mayor ~iel: Yeah, ~lt at that time Jay ~ they had those right at the property, line, it was permitted. Councilman Johnson: Is it but it's now non-confon~,ing so a new guy. could come in and ask to put it right at the property line today where what ws should be 65 City Council Meeting - February 26~ 1990 working towards is, when so~~y's shed's burned down, you don't rebuild it within the setback. Kind of a crazy, thing to think now but you don't perpetuate the non-confo~.ing. Councilman Work~an: But in that situation Jay, it would take 200 years before people could all have their sheds off the property line. Councilman Johnson: Oh yeah. Councilman Workman: So why fight that? Why worry about it? Councilman Johnson: If you never start, it will never get there. If you start, you've got to take the first step of every journey and this is a journey towards bringing Carver Beach into cc~91iance. You and I will not be alive when Carver Beach co~s into compliance. Nobody will be. If we have a nuclear disaster and it cleaxs out Carver Beach and gets replatted. Co~mcil, an Workman: Down on Lake Riley. Skinny little lots. Are they ever going to be in conformance? Councilman Johnson: Probably not. Councilman Workman: In 400 years? Not unless all the houses burn down and they co~v~)ine the lots. Councilman Johnson: But we need to keep bringing them up... Councilman Workman: I'm not defending this thing to the hilt but we need discussion on it and m. aybe tonight's not the night. Mayor Chmiel: I think what we have to do is have a reasonable way to try to help and assist people put in some of their basic needs that they want to improve on their particular lot. Councilman Johnson: It has to be an improv~nt over. In a non-conforming district, which I think we can call several parts of this town as non-conforming districts. Tne majority of the houses in the district are non-conforming.., any variance has to be an improv~v, ent over the general district. Mayor Chmiel: I think Paul put a lot of thought into this and I really, as I mentioned before, I co~v~nd him for it. Maybe sc~ things that are not perfect in here but nonetheless there's been a lot of thought. Willard Johnson: We've bcc~n working in the Carver Beach a number of years. I'll go along with Jay. We've been trying to make this hold to the city setbacks and I agree with Jay. We aren't going to get the 100% down there in Ca,wet Beach but we're working at the places that are gradually ccming in and I guess I think we can do it pretty, good with what we've got. Councilman Johnson: I've ~cn improv~v~nt in t_he little tim~ that I've been here. Willard Johnson: You'll get one like we got down there in Lake Riley occasionally but I feel we're doing pretty good with what we've got and you're 66 City Oouncil Meeting - February 26, 1990 just goin~ to have to ~rk each one individually. That's from my experi~ being on the Board. I realize sc~e of these people have got a hard situation but we get a 7,000 foot lot, sometimes we tell ~ hey. m~t city. setbacks and by. golly they do it. It cleans up an area. Because we had a guy., that guy. that we've ~ fighting these last 2 m~ctings because everything goes in Carver Beach. That isn't the truth. I realize somebody throws up a-shed without the City. catching it and you're going to have that anyplace in the city. I can show you a lot and I wish the Council w~uld all go and look at it. It's just down fr~, me in the $350,000.00 bracket. I called City. Hall on it. We've got a loophole in our own ordinance. My. neighbor has discussed it and his cousin k~lilds down behind the Catholic Church in Excelsior or Shor~ or whatever it is. Councilman Johnson: St. John ' s. Willard Johnson: Yeah, behind St. John's. F~ says, look at that lot right on Apple Road or Yos~%ite. That house is built right on the creek. I told him about it and he said well go around and look where the driveway goes in. That driveway is one car width going in so I called City Hall and they says well it borders on two streets. I wish the Council w~uld all go and look at that one. It's a pie shaped lot and where he drives in, which I ~uld consider his front on the cul-de-sac, can barely get in so no ~y in the w~rld reach the part on Yo~,ite. Councilman Johnson: Yes, that is a loophole in our ordinance. Willard Johnson: Where the creek is, you can't fill the creek. So I guess what I'm saying is hey, he don't have the frontage on the cul-de-sac so I hope you can clean up your ordinances on your develo~ts. Councilman Johnson: In this case, on the side there is street frontage. This is before Paul's ti~ and he's sitting there looking. On the side that this lot actually has street frontage, so it has street frontage. It's got 90 foot of street frontage. It's non-accessible because there's a 40 foot d~.--p creek there. Paul Kra~ms: There's a situation si~liar to that in Ti~erwood .... private driveway because the public platted road isn't built and you can't access it. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I think I argued for both of those. I know I ar~__~_ on the one over there by.. Mayor Ch%iel: Some direction I think Paul is looking for from us. Paul Kra~s: I'd like to know if you want us to puzsue it? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I want you to pursue it. Mayor Ch,,iel: Yeah. I'd like to see it puxsued. At least that's my opinion. Councilman Boyt: Sure pointed out sc~ areas that I think are real t~obl~ areas with it. 67 City Co~ncil F~eting - February 26, 1990 Council~.~n Johnson: Yeah. I think it's going to be too loose with some of this stuff. Councilwom~n Dim]er: We might want to tighten so~ up but w~ do ~ant to give more breathing rock.,. Councilm~n Work~n moved, Councilwom~n Dimler seconded to adjoltrn the m~_~ting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Sub~,itted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 68